HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013_1202_packetCity of
"zorm, ciy7Nx
4I.A k J�j V JL 1.j I 'ja d
FAR_
Minnesota, USA
City Council Agenda
Monday, December 2, 2013
6:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers
(Times are Approximate — please note that items may be
earlier or later than listed on the agenda)
6:00 p.m. 1. Roll Call
Voting &Seating Order: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte,
Etten, Roe
6:02 p.m.
2.
Approve Agenda
6:05 p.m.
3.
Public Comment
6:10 p.m.
4.
Council Communications, Reports and Announcements
6:15 p.m.
5.
Recognitions, Donations and Communications
a. New Police Officer introduction
6.
Approve Minutes
6:25 p.m.
7.
Approve Consent Agenda
a. Approve Payments
b. Approve Business &Other Licenses &Permits
c. Extension of Janitorial Services Contract for Roseville
Facilities
6:35 p.m.
8.
Consider Items Removed from Consent
9.
General Ordinances for Adoption
10.
Presentations
11.
Public Hearings
12.
Budget Items
6:40 p.m.
a. Budget Hearing on Proposed 2014 Budget
7:10 p.m.
Break —Move to Table
7:20 p.m.
b. Volunteer Coordinator Discussion
7:40 p.m.
c. Adopt Final 2014 Budget and Tax Levy
8:00 P.M.
d. Adopt Final 2014 HRA Budget and Tax Levy
Council Agenda - Page 2
13. Business Items (Action Items)
8:20 p.m. a. 2014 Utility Fees
8:35 p.m. b. Confirm Advisory Commission Reappoint /Appointment
Process
14. Business Items — Presentations/Discussions
8:45 p.m. a. Unified Purchasing Discussion
8:55 p.m. 15. City Manager Future Agenda Review
9:05 p.m. 16. Councilmember Initiated Items for Future Meetings
9:10 p.m. 17. Adjourn
Some Upcoming Public Meetings ........ .
Tuesday
Dec 3
6:30 p.m.
Parks & Recreation Commission
Wednesday
Dec 4
6:30 p.m.
Planning Commission
Monday
Dec 9
6:00 p.m.
City Council Meeting
No Meeting in December
Housing & Redevelopment Authority
Wednesday
Dec 19
6:30 p.m.
Human Rights Commission
Tuesday
Wednesday
Dec 24 -25
City Offices Closed — Christmas Eve & Christmas Day
Wednesday
January 1
City Offices Closed —New Fears
Monday
Jan 6
6:00 p.m.
City Council Meeting
All meetings at Roseville City Hall, 2660 Civic Center Drive, Roseville, MN unless otherwise noted.
Date: 12/2/2013
Item: 5
1 MEMORANDUM New Police Office
DATE: December 2, 2013
TO: Interim City Manager Patrick Trudgeon
FROM: Chief Rick Mathwig
SUBJECT: New Police Officer Introductions to Roseville City Council
At the 12/2/13, Roseville City Council Meeting, Chief Mathwig will give short introductions of the
newest additions to the Roseville Police Department: Officer Ryan Weber and Officer Luke
Sturm.
Both officers will be sworn in at 3:30PM, on Thursday, December 5t", in the council chambers.
qlxse�fh�
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Department Approval
Item Description: Approve Payments
Date: 12/02/2013
Item No.: 7.a
City Manager Approval
BACKGROUND
State Statute requires the City Council to approve all payment of claims. The following summary of claims
has been submitted to the City for payment.
Check Series 4 Amount
ACH Payments $39,890.36
72110 -72194 $610,744.07
Total $650,634.43
5
6 A detailed report of the claims is attached. City Staff has reviewed the claims and considers them to be
7 appropriate for the goods and services received.
8 POLICY OBJECTIVE
Under Mn State Statute, all claims are required to be paid within 35 days of receipt.
10 FINANCIAL IMPACTS
11 All expenditures listed above have been funded by the current budget, from donated monies, or from cash
12 reserves.
1:3 STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of all payment of claims.
1 -9; REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION
16 Motion to approve the payment of claims as submitted
17
18 Prepared by: Chris Miller, Finance Director
19 Attachments: A: Checks for Approval
20
Page 1 of 1
Attachment A
Accounts Payable
Checks for Approval
User: mart' j enson
Printed: 11/26/2013 - 9:53 AM
Check Number
Check Date
Fund Name
Account Name
Vendor Name
Invoice Desc.
Amount
72171
11/21/2013
Charitable Gambling
Professional Services - Bingo
Shidell & Mair
Midway Speedskating Bingo
2,041.20
72171
11/21/2013
Charitable Gambling
Professional Services - Bingo
Shidell & Mair
Youth Hockey Bingo
2,347.38
Professional Services - Bingo Total:
4,388.58
Fund Total:
4,388.58
72150
11/21/2013
Community Development
Building Surcharge
Mn Dept of Labor & Industry Building Permit Surcharges
2,957.11
72152
11/21/2013
Community Development
Building Surcharge
Mowry Electric
Electrical Permit Refund
5.00
Building Surcharge Total:
2,962.11
72152
11/21/2013
Community Development
Electrical Permits
Mowry Electric
Electrical Permit Refund
70.00
Electrical Permits Total:
70.00
72175
11/21/2013
Community Development
Life Ins. Employee
Standard Insurance
Company Life Insurance Premium -Nov 2013 -P(
226.10
Life Ins. Employee Total:
226.10
72175
11/21/2013
Community Development
Life Ins. Employer
Standard Insurance
Company Life Insurance Premium -Nov 2013 -P(
80.79
Life Ins. Employer Total:
80.79
72175
11/21/2013
Community Development
Long Term Disability
Standard Insurance
Company Life Insurance Premium -Nov 2013 -P(
183.58
Long Term Disability Total:
183.58
72155
11/21/2013
Community Development
Medical Ins Employee
NJPA
Health Insurance Premium -Nov 2013
798.48
AP- Checks for Approval (11 /26/2013 - 9:53 AM) Page 1
Check Number Check Date Fund Name Account Name Vendor Name Invoice Desc. Amount
AP- Checks for Approval (11 /26/2013 - 9:53 AM) Page 2
Medical Ins Employee Total:
798.48
72155
11/21/2013
Community Development
Medical Ins Employer
NJPA Health Insurance Premium -Nov 2013
3,745.84
Medical Ins Employer Total:
3,745.84
72150
11/21/2013
Community Development
Miscellaneous Revenue
Mn Dept of Labor & Industry Building Permit Surcharges - Retentior
-58.98
Miscellaneous Revenue Total:
-58.98
72146
11/21/2013
Community Development
Professional Services
Scott McKown Country Inn & Suites Plan Review
1,102.50
72156
11/21/2013
Community Development
Professional Services
Opportunity Services 13 Hours of Service
136.76
Professional Services Total:
1,239.26
72128
11/21/2013
Community Development
Training
Donald Salverda & Associates Leadership Books
74.79
72128
11/21/2013
Community Development
Training
Donald Salverda & Associates Leadership Books
86.52
Training Total:
161.31
Fund Total:
9,408.49
72175
11/21/2013
Contracted Engineering Svcs
Life Ins. Employer
Standard Insurance Company Life Insurance Premium -Nov 2013 -P(
8.08
Life Ins. Employer Total:
8.08
72175
11/21/2013
Contracted Engineering Svcs
Long Term Disability
Standard Insurance Company Life Insurance Premium -Nov 2013 -P(
19.68
Long Term Disability Total:
19.68
72155
11/21/2013
Contracted Engineering Svcs
Medical Ins Employer
NJPA Health Insurance Premium -Nov 2013
359.94
Medical Ins Employer Total:
359.94
72134
11/21/2013
Contracted Engineering Svcs
Professional Services
Hydromethods, LLC Autozone Development Analysis
245.00
72134
11/21/2013
Contracted Engineering Svcs
Professional Services
Hydromethods, LLC Country Inn & Suites Development R
245.00
AP- Checks for Approval (11 /26/2013 - 9:53 AM) Page 2
Check Number Check Date Fund Name
Account Name Vendor Name Invoice Desc. Amount
AP- Checks for Approval (11 /26/2013 - 9:53 AM) Page 3
Professional Services Total:
490.00
Fund Total:
877.70
72165
11/21/2013
General Fund
209001 - Use Tax Payable
R & B Supply Co., Inc. Sales/Use Tax
-11.00
209001 - Use Tax Payable Total:
-11.00
0
11/21/2013
General Fund
211402 - Flex Spending Health
Flexible Benefit Reimbursement
386.36
0
11/21/2013
General Fund
211402 - Flex Spending Health
Flexible Benefit Reimbursement
500.00
211402 - Flex Spending Health Total:
886.36
0
11/21/2013
General Fund
211403 - Flex Spend Day Care
Dependent Care Reimbursement
670.04
0
11/21/2013
General Fund
211403 - Flex Spend Day Care
Dependent Care Reimbursement
298.13
0
11/21/2013
General Fund
211403 - Flex Spend Day Care
Dependent Care Reimbursement
192.31
211403 - Flex Spend Day Care Total:
1,160.48
72132
11/21/2013
General Fund
Business Licenses
Naomi Hagestuen Massage Therapist License Refund
75.00
Business Licenses Total:
75.00
72112
11/21/2013
General Fund
Clothing
Aspen Mills Inc. Uniform Supplies
95.40
72112
11/21/2013
General Fund
Clothing
Aspen Mills Inc. Uniform Supplies
76.95
72120
11/21/2013
General Fund
Clothing
Cintas Corporation 9470 Uniform Cleaning
30.68
72120
11/21/2013
General Fund
Clothing
Cintas Corporation 9470 Uniform Cleaning
30.68
72120
11/21/2013
General Fund
Clothing
Cintas Corporation 9470 Uniform Cleaning
30.68
72120
11/21/2013
General Fund
Clothing
Cintas Corporation 9470 Uniform Cleaning
30.68
72183
11/21/2013
General Fund
Clothing
Uniforms Unlimited, Inc. Uniform Supplies
1,114.49
72183
11/21/2013
General Fund
Clothing
Uniforms Unlimited, Inc. Uniform Supplies
1,114.49
72183
11/21/2013
General Fund
Clothing
Uniforms Unlimited, Inc. Uniform Supplies
73.00
72183
11/21/2013
General Fund
Clothing
Uniforms Unlimited, Inc. Batteries
36.32
Clothing Total:
2,633.37
72140
11/21/2013
General Fund
Conferences
League of MN Cities Regional Meetings
80.00
72140
11/21/2013
General Fund
Conferences
League of MN Cities Regional Meetings
40.00
72186
11/21/2013
General Fund
Conferences
Upper Midwest Community Policin Internal Affairs- S chei der
250.00
AP- Checks for Approval (11 /26/2013 - 9:53 AM) Page 3
Check Number Check Date Fund Name Account Name Vendor Name Invoice Desc. Amount
AP- Checks for Approval (11 /26/2013 - 9:53 AM) Page 4
Conferences Total:
370.00
0
11/21/2013
General Fund
Contract Maint. - City Hall
Collins Electrical Construction
Co. Electrical Service
501.22
Contract Maint. - City Hall Total:
501.22
72125
11/21/2013
General Fund
Contract Maintenance
Comcast
Cable TV
220.02
72185
11/21/2013
General Fund
Contract Maintenance
Upper Cut Tree Service
Blanket PO for tree removal
663.16
Contract Maintenance Total:
883.18
0
11/21/2013
General Fund
Contract Maintenance Vehicles
Mister Car Wash
Vehicle Washes
121.63
Contract Maintenance Vehicles Total:
121.63
72187
11/21/2013
General Fund
Employee Recognition
US Bank
City Service Awards
1,275.00
Employee Recognition Total:
1,275.00
72155
11/21/2013
General Fund
Employer Insurance
NJPA
Health Insurance Premium -Nov 2013
870.00
72155
11/21/2013
General Fund
Employer Insurance
NJPA
Health Insurance Premium -Nov 2013
890.00
Employer Insurance Total:
1,760.00
72175
11/21/2013
General Fund
Life Ins. Employee
Standard Insurance
Company Life Insurance Premium -Nov 2013 -P(
1,718.02
Life Ins. Employee Total:
1,718.02
72175
11/21/2013
General Fund
Life Ins. Employer
Standard Insurance
Company Life Insurance Premium -Nov 2013 -P(
515.30
Life Ins. Employer Total:
515.30
72175
11/21/2013
General Fund
Long Term Disability
Standard Insurance
Company Life Insurance Premium -Nov 2013 -P(
1,379.94
Long Term Disability Total:
1,379.94
72155
11/21/2013
General Fund
Medical Ins Employee
NJPA
Health Insurance Premium -Nov 2013
9,980.10
72155
11/21/2013
General Fund
Medical Ins Employee
NJPA
Health Insurance Premium -Nov 2013
6,605.02
AP- Checks for Approval (11 /26/2013 - 9:53 AM) Page 4
Check Number
Check Date
Fund Name
Account Name
Vendor Name
Invoice Desc.
Amount
Medical Ins Employee Total:
16,585.12
72155
11/21/2013
General Fund
Medical Ins Employer
NJPA
Health Insurance Premium -Nov 2013
34,356.74
Medical Ins Employer Total:
34,356.74
72113
11/21/2013
General Fund
Memberships & Subscriptions
Paul Baertschi
Police Briefs Subscription Renewal
155.00
72189
11/21/2013
General Fund
Memberships & Subscriptions
USPCA Region 12
2014 Dues -K9
0.00
72189
11/21/2013
General Fund
Memberships & Subscriptions
USPCA Region 12
2013 Dues -K9
0.00
72193
11/22/2013
General Fund
Memberships & Subscriptions
USPCA Region 12
2014 Dues -K9
40.00
72194
11/22/2013
General Fund
Memberships & Subscriptions
USPCA Region 12
2013 Dues -K9
50.00
Memberships & Subscriptions Total:
335.00
72142
11/21/2013
General Fund
Miscellaneous
Linn Building Maintenance Fire Station 92 Interior Cleaning
1,055.93
Miscellaneous Total:
1,055.93
72117
11/21/2013
General Fund
Op Supplies - City Hall
C L Bensen Company, Inc. Pleated Filters
314.49
72180
11/21/2013
General Fund
Op Supplies - City Hall
Trio Supply Company
Restroom Supplies
404.39
Op Supplies - City Hall Total:
718.88
72127
11/21/2013
General Fund
Operating Supplies
Dama Metal Products, INC. Key Box
460.63
72129
11/21/2013
General Fund
Operating Supplies
Earl F. Andersen, Inc.
Sign
99.23
0
11/21/2013
General Fund
Operating Supplies
Grainger Inc
Strap Wrench, Pressure Gauge
90.59
72135
11/21/2013
General Fund
Operating Supplies
Impressive Print
Police Business Cards
74.81
0
11/21/2013
General Fund
Operating Supplies
MES, Inc.
Hydro Flow Hose
269.06
72153
11/21/2013
General Fund
Operating Supplies
Networkfleet, Inc.
Monthly Service
145.75
Operating Supplies Total:
1,140.07
72180
11/21/2013
General Fund
Operating Supplies City Garage
Trio Supply Company
Hand Soap
50.18
Operating Supplies City Garage Total:
50.18
72139
11/21/2013
General Fund
Professional Services
Language Line Services
Interpreter Service
99.15
72141
11/21/2013
General Fund
Professional Services
LexisNexis Risk Data Mgmt,
Inc. Person Searches
70.25
72159
11/21/2013
General Fund
Professional Services
Performance Plus LLC
Medical Evaluations, Mask Fittings
8,255.00
72173
11/21/2013
General Fund
Professional Services
Springsted, Inc.
Compensation Study- Project: 00141E
15,547.45
AP- Checks for Approval (11 /26/2013 - 9:53 AM) Page 5
Check Number Check Date Fund Name Account Name Vendor Name Invoice Desc. Amount
72177
11/21/2013
General Fund
Professional Services
Sheila Stowell
City Council Meeting Minutes
316.25
72177
11/21/2013
General Fund
Professional Services
Sheila Stowell
Mileage Reimbursement
4.92
Professional Services Total:
24,293.02
0
11/21/2013
General Fund
Utilities
Xcel Energy
Civil Defense
68.69
0
11/21/2013
General Fund
Utilities
Xcel Energy
Street Light
14,595.84
Utilities Total:
14,664.53
0
11/21/2013
General Fund
Utilities - City Garage
Xcel Energy
Garage/PW Building
2,667.87
Utilities -
City Garage Total:
2,667.87
0
11/21/2013
General Fund
Utilities - City Hall
Xcel Energy
City Hall Building
6,342.06
Utilities -
City Hall Total:
6,342.06
72118
11/21/2013
General Fund
Vehicle Supplies
Carquest of Roseville MN 92236
Marker Lamp
1.99
72118
11/21/2013
General Fund
Vehicle Supplies
Carquest of Roseville MN 92236
Marker Lamps
11.96
72126
11/21/2013
General Fund
Vehicle Supplies
Cry steel Truck Equipment, Inc.
2013 Blanket PO for Vehicle Repairs
700.25
0
11/21/2013
General Fund
Vehicle Supplies
Factory Motor Parts, Co.
2013 Blanket PO for vehicle repairs
85.65
0
11/21/2013
General Fund
Vehicle Supplies
Fastenal Company Inc.
2013 Blanket PO for Vehicle Repairs
38.21
0
11/21/2013
General Fund
Vehicle Supplies
Larson Companies
Filters, Rotors
804.04
72144
11/21/2013
General Fund
Vehicle Supplies
Matheson Tri -Gas, Inc
Acetylene
59.99
0
11/21/2013
General Fund
Vehicle Supplies
McMaster -Carr Supply Co
2013 Blanket PO for Vehicle Repairs
45.95
0
11/21/2013
General Fund
Vehicle Supplies
McMaster -Carr Supply Co
2013 Blanket PO for Vehicle Repairs
19.70
0
11/21/2013
General Fund
Vehicle Supplies
Napa Auto Parts
2013 Blanket PO for Vehicle Repairs
90.26
0
11/21/2013
General Fund
Vehicle Supplies
Napa Auto Parts
2013 Blanket PO for Vehicle Repairs
80.16
0
11/21/2013
General Fund
Vehicle Supplies
Napa Auto Parts
2013 Blanket PO for Vehicle Repairs
20.29
72163
11/21/2013
General Fund
Vehicle Supplies
Powerplan BF
Vehicle Supplies- Credit
- 196.30
72163
11/21/2013
General Fund
Vehicle Supplies
Powerplan BF
Vehicle Supplies
569.68
72165
11/21/2013
General Fund
Vehicle Supplies
R & B Supply Co., Inc.
Drill Bit Set
171.00
72168
11/21/2013
General Fund
Vehicle Supplies
Roseville Chrysler Jeep Dodge
2013 Blanket PO for vehicle repairs
227.53
72178
11/21/2013
General Fund
Vehicle Supplies
Suburban Tire Wholesale, Inc.
2013 Blanket PO for vehicle repairs
619.88
72178
11/21/2013
General Fund
Vehicle Supplies
Suburban Tire Wholesale, Inc.
2013 Blanket PO for vehicle repairs
120.00
72181
11/21/2013
General Fund
Vehicle Supplies
Truck Utilities, Inc.
Solenoid
272.66
Vehicle Supplies Total: 3,742.90
AP- Checks for Approval (11 /26/2013 - 9:53 AM) Page 6
Check Number Check Date Fund Name
72175 11/21/2013 Golf Course
72175 11/21/2013 Golf Course
72175 11/21/2013 Golf Course
72155 11/21/2013 Golf Course
72155
0
0
72138
72138
72138
11/21/2013 Golf Course
11/21/2013 Golf Course
11/21/2013 Golf Course
Account Name Vendor Name Invoice Desc. Amount
Life Ins. Employee
Life Ins. Employer
Long Term Disability
Medical Ins Employee
Medical Ins Employer
Rental
Utilities
11/21/2013 Housing & Redevelopment Agency Attorney Fees
11/21/2013 Housing & Redevelopment Agency Attorney Fees
11/21/2013 Housing & Redevelopment Agency Attorney Fees
Fund Total:
119,130.80
Standard Insurance Company Life Insurance Premium -Nov 2013 -Pc
56.64
Life Ins. Employee Total:
56.64
Standard Insurance Company Life Insurance Premium -Nov 2013 -Pc
8.08
Life Ins. Employer Total:
8.08
Standard Insurance Company Life Insurance Premium -Nov 2013 -Pc
20.52
Long Term Disability Total:
20.52
NJPA Health Insurance Premium -Nov 2013
1,145.40
Medical Ins Employee Total:
1,145.40
NJPA Health Insurance Premium -Nov 2013
1,297.00
Medical Ins Employer Total:
1,297.00
Jimmys Johnnys, Inc Regular Service
45.42
Rental Total:
45.42
Xcel Energy Golf
469.60
Utilities Total:
469.60
Fund Total:
3,042.66
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered Legal Services
180.00
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered Legal Services
756.00
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered Legal Services
774.00
Attorney Fees Total:
1,710.00
AP- Checks for Approval (11 /26/2013 - 9:53 AM) Page 7
Check Number Check Date Fund Name Account Name
72170 11/21/2013 Housing & Redevelopment Agency Payment to Owners
72172 11/21/2013 Housing & Redevelopment Agency Payment to Owners
72179 11/21/2013 Housing & Redevelopment Agency Payment to Owners
72177
11/21/2013
Housing & Redevelopment Agency
Professional Services
72177
11/21/2013
Housing & Redevelopment Agency
Professional Services
72177
11/21/2013
Housing & Redevelopment Agency
Professional Services
0
11/21/2013
Housing & Redevelopment Agency
Transportation
0
11/21/2013
Housing & Redevelopment Agency
Transportation
72157
11/21/2013
Information Technology
Contract Maintenance
72121
11/21/2013
Information Technology
Internet
72121
11/21/2013
Information Technology
Internet
72188
11/21/2013
Information Technology
Internet
72175
11/21/2013
Information Technology
Life Ins. Employee
72175
11/21/2013
Information Technology
Life Ins. Employer
72175
11/21/2013
Information Technology
Long Term Disability
AP- Checks for Approval (11 /26/2013 - 9:53 AM)
Vendor Name Invoice Desc. Amount
Diane Schmidt
Energy Audit
60.00
John Speltz
Energy Audit
60.00
Emily Talley
Energy Audit
60.00
Payment to Owners Total:
180.00
Sheila Stowell
HRA Meeting Minutes
230.00
Sheila Stowell
HRA Meeting Minutes
80.50
Sheila Stowell
HRA Meeting Minutes - Mileage Reim
4.92
Professional Services Total:
315.42
Jeanne Kelsey
Mileage Reimbursement
39.55
Jeanne Kelsey
Parking Reimbursement
20.00
Transportation Total:
59.55
Fund Total:
2,264.97
Paragon Solutions Group, Inc. Firewalls
80.34
Contract Maintenance Total:
80.34
City of North St. Paul Data Center Interconnects
641.25
City of North St. Paul Billing Interconnects
2,030.63
US Internet
DNS Hosting
20.00
Internet Total:
2,691.88
Standard Insurance
Company Life Insurance Premium -Nov 2013 -Pc
48.61
Life Ins. Employee Total:
48.61
Standard Insurance
Company Life Insurance Premium -Nov 2013 -Pc
86.86
Life Ins. Employer Total:
86.86
Standard Insurance
Company Life Insurance Premium -Nov 2013 -Pc
197.38
Page 8
Check Number Check Date Fund Name Account Name Vendor Name Invoice Desc. Amount
AP- Checks for Approval (11 /26/2013 - 9:53 AM) Page 9
Long Term Disability Total:
197.38
72155
11/21/2013
Information Technology
Medical Ins Employee
NJPA
Health Insurance Premium -Nov 2013
2,103.66
Medical Ins Employee Total:
2,103.66
72155
11/21/2013
Information Technology
Medical Ins Employer
NJPA
Health Insurance Premium -Nov 2013
6,164.13
Medical Ins Employer Total:
6,164.13
72122
11/21/2013
Information Technology
Operating Supplies
City of St. Francis
Triple Head 2 Go Dual Link
299.41
Operating Supplies Total:
299.41
Fund Total:
11,672.27
0
11/21/2013
License Center
Computer Equipment
SHI International Corp Office License
259.71
Computer Equipment Total:
259.71
72175
11/21/2013
License Center
Life Ins. Employee
Standard Insurance
Company Life Insurance Premium -Nov 2013 -P(
55.98
Life Ins. Employee Total:
55.98
72175
11/21/2013
License Center
Life Ins. Employer
Standard Insurance
Company Life Insurance Premium -Nov 2013 -P(
72.72
Life Ins. Employer Total:
72.72
72175
11/21/2013
License Center
Long Term Disability
Standard Insurance
Company Life Insurance Premium -Nov 2013 -P(
122.42
Long Term Disability Total:
122.42
72155
11/21/2013
License Center
Medical Ins Employee
NJPA
Health Insurance Premium -Nov 2013
3,345.12
Medical Ins Employee Total:
3,345.12
72155
11/21/2013
License Center
Medical Ins Employer
NJPA
Health Insurance Premium -Nov 2013
5,757.84
AP- Checks for Approval (11 /26/2013 - 9:53 AM) Page 9
Check Number Check Date Fund Name Account Name
Vendor Name Invoice Desc. Amount
AP- Checks for Approval (11 /26/2013 - 9:53 AM) Page 10
Medical Ins Employer Total:
5,757.84
0
11/21/2013
License Center
Minor Equipment
Intereum, Inc.
Door Installation
870.80
Minor Equipment Total:
870.80
0
11/21/2013
License Center
Professional Services
Quicksilver Express Courier Courier Service
175.71
Professional Services Total:
175.71
Fund Total:
10,660.30
72175
11/21/2013
P & R Contract Mantenance
Life Ins. Employee
Standard Insurance
Company Life Insurance Premium -Nov 2013 -P(
53.67
Life Ins. Employee Total:
53.67
72175
11/21/2013
P & R Contract Mantenance
Life Ins. Employer
Standard Insurance
Company Life Insurance Premium -Nov 2013 -P(
50.50
Life Ins. Employer Total:
50.50
72175
11/21/2013
P & R Contract Mantenance
Long Term Disability
Standard Insurance
Company Life Insurance Premium -Nov 2013 -P(
89.19
Long Term Disability Total:
89.19
72155
11/21/2013
P & R Contract Mantenance
Medical Ins Employee
NJPA
Health Insurance Premium -Nov 2013
1,159.26
Medical Ins Employee Total:
1,159.26
72155
11/21/2013
P & R Contract Mantenance
Medical Ins Employer
NJPA
Health Insurance Premium -Nov 2013
4,357.78
Medical Ins Employer Total:
4,357.78
72110
11/21/2013
P & R Contract Mantenance
Operating Supplies
Able Fence Inc
6 Gauge Long Ties
64.13
0
11/21/2013
P & R Contract Mantenance
Operating Supplies
Bachmans Inc
Arboretum Supplies
447.78
72120
11/21/2013
P & R Contract Mantenance
Operating Supplies
Cintas Corporation
9470 Uniform Cleaning
8.68
72120
11/21/2013
P & R Contract Mantenance
Operating Supplies
Cintas Corporation
9470 Uniform Cleaning
8.68
72120
11/21/2013
P & R Contract Mantenance
Operating Supplies
Cintas Corporation
9470 Uniform Cleaning
8.68
72120
11/21/2013
P & R Contract Mantenance
Operating Supplies
Cintas Corporation
9470 Uniform Cleaning
8.68
72131
11/21/2013
P & R Contract Mantenance
Operating Supplies
Gertens Greenhouses Arboretum Supplies
85.37
AP- Checks for Approval (11 /26/2013 - 9:53 AM) Page 10
Check Number
Check Date
Fund Name
Account Name
Vendor Name Invoice Desc.
Amount
0
11/21/2013
P & R Contract Mantenance
Operating Supplies
M /AAssociates Can Liners
418.26
72149
11/21/2013
P & R Contract Mantenance
Operating Supplies
MIDC Enterprises Rotors
270.59
72149
11/21/2013
P & R Contract Mantenance
Operating Supplies
MIDC Enterprises Coupling, Adapters
34.29
0
11/21/2013
P & R Contract Mantenance
Operating Supplies
St. Croix Recreation Co., Inc. Litter Pick -Up Bags
121.84
72180
11/21/2013
P & R Contract Mantenance
Operating Supplies
Trio Supply Company Restroom Supplies
105.70
Operating Supplies Total:
1,582.68
72185
11/21/2013
P & R Contract Mantenance
Professional Services
Upper Cut Tree Service Diseased and Hazard Tree Removal
1,416.09
72185
11/21/2013
P & R Contract Mantenance
Professional Services
Upper Cut Tree Service Diseased and Hazard Tree Removal
996.08
72185
11/21/2013
P & R Contract Mantenance
Professional Services
Upper Cut Tree Service Diseased and Hazard Tree Removal
2,992.50
Professional Services Total:
5,404.67
Fund Total:
12,697.75
72176
11/21/2013
Park Renewal 2011
Professional Services
Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 2012 -2016 Parks & Rec renewal prog
1,843.25
Professional Services Total:
1,843.25
Fund Total:
1,843.25
72181
11/21/2013
Pathway Maintenance Fund
Operating Supplies
Truck Utilities, Inc. Sales Tax
398.75
72181
11/21/2013
Pathway Maintenance Fund
Operating Supplies
Truck Utilities, Inc. Kage System SF 8' Skidsteer Mount (
5,800.00
Operating Supplies Total:
6,198.75
Fund Total:
6,198.75
0
11/21/2013
Police - DWI Enforcement
Professional Services
Erickson, Bell, Beckman & Quinn I Legal Services- Vehicle Forfeiture
770.00
72182
11/21/2013
Police - DWI Enforcement
Professional Services
Twin Cities Transport & Recove Towing Service
235.13
Professional Services Total:
1,005.13
Fund Total:
1,005.13
72175
11/21/2013
Police Grants
Life Ins. Employee
Standard Insurance Company Life Insurance Premium -Nov 2013 -P(
1.50
AP- Checks for Approval (11 /26/2013 -
9:53 AM)
Page 11
Check Number Check Date Fund Name
72175 11/21/2013 Police Grants
72175 11/21/2013 Police Grants
72155 11/21/2013 Police Grants
72155 11/21/2013 Police Grants
72143 11/21/2013 Recreation Donations
72176 11/21/2013 Recreation Donations
72175 11/21/2013 Recreation Fund
72175 11/21/2013 Recreation Fund
AP- Checks for Approval (11 /26/2013 - 9:53 AM)
Account Name Vendor Name Invoice Desc. Amount
Page 12
Life Ins. Employee Total:
1.50
Life Ins. Employer
Standard Insurance
Company Life Insurance Premium -Nov 2013 -Pc
0.32
Life Ins. Employer Total:
0.32
Long Term Disability
Standard Insurance
Company Life Insurance Premium -Nov 2013 -Pc
0.70
Long Term Disability Total:
0.70
Medical Ins Employee
NJPA
Health Insurance Premium -Nov 2013
6.18
Medical Ins Employee Total:
6.18
Medical Ins Employer
NJPA
Health Insurance Premium -Nov 2013
34.57
Medical Ins Employer Total:
34.57
Fund Total:
43.27
Operating Supplies
Marshall Concrete Products, Inc. Bench Slabs
540.03
Operating Supplies Total:
540.03
Other Improvements
Stantec Consulting
Services Inc. Rain Garden Interpretive Sign
860.00
Other Improvements Total:
860.00
Fund Total:
1,400.03
Life Ins. Employee
Standard Insurance
Company Life Insurance Premium -Nov 2013 -Pc
106.05
Life Ins. Employee Total:
106.05
Life Ins. Employer
Standard Insurance
Company Life Insurance Premium -Nov 2013 -Pc
96.96
Page 12
Check Number
Check Date
Fund Name
Account Name
Vendor Name Invoice Desc.
Amount
Life Ins. Employer Total:
96.96
72175
11/21/2013
Recreation Fund
Long Term Disability
Standard Insurance Company Life Insurance Premium -Nov 2013 -P(
223.11
Long Term Disability Total:
223.11
72155
11/21/2013
Recreation Fund
Medical Ins Employee
NJPA Health Insurance Premium -Nov 2013
1,754.07
Medical Ins Employee Total:
1,754.07
72155
11/21/2013
Recreation Fund
Medical Ins Employer
NJPA Health Insurance Premium -Nov 2013
6,433.46
Medical Ins Employer Total:
6,433.46
72166
11/21/2013
Recreation Fund
Memberships & Subscriptions
Ramsey County Food Establishment License - Skating 1
503.00
Memberships & Subscriptions Total:
503.00
72133
11/21/2013
Recreation Fund
Operating Supplies
Hermel Food Service Skating Center Concession Supplies
1,356.25
Operating Supplies Total:
1,356.25
72115
11/21/2013
Recreation Fund
Professional Services
Jim Berner Club 5 Holiday Party
125.00
Professional Services Total:
125.00
Fund Total:
10,597.90
0
11/21/2013
Risk Management
Employer Insurance
Delta Dental Plan of Minnesota Dental Insurance Premium - November
4,330.74
Employer Insurance Total:
4,330.74
Fund Total:
4,330.74
72124
11/21/2013
Sanitary Sewer
Accounts Payable
ROBERT COLEMAN Refund Check
6.28
72151
11/21/2013
Sanitary Sewer
Accounts Payable
DR ALBERT MOWLEM Refund Check
4.19
72161
11/21/2013
Sanitary Sewer
Accounts Payable
DONALD PIZZELLA SR. Refund Check
2.54
AP- Checks for Approval (11 /26/2013 -
9:53 AM)
Page 13
Check Number
Check Date
Fund Name
Account Name
Vendor Name
Invoice Desc.
Amount
72164
11/21/2013
Sanitary Sewer
Accounts Payable
EUGENE PRIESTLEY Refund Check
8.15
Accounts Payable Total:
21.16
72175
11/21/2013
Sanitary Sewer
Life Ins. Employee
Standard Insurance
Company Life Insurance Premium -Nov 2013 -P(
19.66
Life Ins. Employee Total:
19.66
72175
11/21/2013
Sanitary Sewer
Life Ins. Employer
Standard Insurance
Company Life Insurance Premium -Nov 2013 -P(
41.22
Life Ins. Employer Total:
41.22
72175
11/21/2013
Sanitary Sewer
Long Term Disability
Standard Insurance
Company Life Insurance Premium -Nov 2013 -P(
71.23
Long Term Disability Total:
71.23
72155
11/21/2013
Sanitary Sewer
Medical Ins Employee
NJPA
Health Insurance Premium -Nov 2013
980.93
Medical Ins Employee Total:
980.93
72155
11/21/2013
Sanitary Sewer
Medical Ins Employer
NJPA
Health Insurance Premium -Nov 2013
1,665.37
Medical Ins Employer Total:
1,665.37
0
11/21/2013
Sanitary Sewer
Professional Services
Ecoenvelopes, LLC Utility Billing Section 001
121.48
72153
11/21/2013
Sanitary Sewer
Professional Services
Networkfleet, Inc.
Monthly Service
51.90
Professional Services Total:
173.38
72148
11/21/2013
Sanitary Sewer
Sewer SAC Charges
Metropolitan Council/ Environment SAC Charges
9,642.60
Sewer SAC Charges Total:
9,642.60
Fund Total:
12,615.55
72175
11/21/2013
Solid Waste Recycle
Life Ins. Employee
Standard Insurance
Company Life Insurance Premium -Nov 2013 -P(
15.75
Life Ins. Employee Total:
15.75
AP- Checks for Approval (11 /26/2013 - 9:53 AM) Page 14
Check Number Check Date Fund Name Account Name Vendor Name Invoice Desc. Amount
AP- Checks for Approval (11 /26/2013 - 9:53 AM) Page 15
Fund Total:
15.75
72134
11/21/2013
Storm Drainage
2013 Drainage Improvements
Hydromethods, LLC
Sherren- Dellwood Drainage Analysis
315.00
72134
11/21/2013
Storm Drainage
2013 Drainage Improvements
Hydromethods, LLC
Sherren - Dellwood Drainage Analysis
1,085.00
2013 Drainage Improvements Total:
1,400.00
72175
11/21/2013
Storm Drainage
Life Ins. Employee
Standard Insurance Company
Life Insurance Premium -Nov 2013 -P(
13.50
Life Ins. Employee Total:
13.50
72175
11/21/2013
Storm Drainage
Life Ins. Employer
Standard Insurance Company
Life Insurance Premium -Nov 2013 -P(
33.67
Life Ins. Employer Total:
33.67
72175
11/21/2013
Storm Drainage
Long Term Disability
Standard Insurance Company
Life Insurance Premium -Nov 2013 -P(
51.29
Long Term Disability Total:
51.29
72130
11/21/2013
Storm Drainage
Operating Supplies
Fra -Dor Inc.
Street Loads
96.00
72153
11/21/2013
Storm Drainage
Operating Supplies
Networkfleet, Inc.
Monthly Service
25.95
Operating Supplies Total:
121.95
0
11/21/2013
Storm Drainage
Professional Services
Ecoenvelopes, LLC
Utility Billing Section 001
121.48
72134
11/21/2013
Storm Drainage
Professional Services
Hydromethods, LLC
1474 Co Rd C2 Drainage Analysis
2,555.00
72134
11/21/2013
Storm Drainage
Professional Services
Hydromethods, LLC
Troseth/Manson Drainage Analysis
245.00
72134
11/21/2013
Storm Drainage
Professional Services
Hydromethods, LLC
Roselawn- Ruggles Drainage Analysis
70.00
72134
11/21/2013
Storm Drainage
Professional Services
Hydromethods, LLC
Toseth - Manson Drainage Analysis
560.00
72134
11/21/2013
Storm Drainage
Professional Services
Hydromethods, LLC
1474 Co Rd C2 Drainage Analysis
70.00
72174
11/21/2013
Storm Drainage
Professional Services
St. Paul Staffing
Seasonal Labor for 2013 Leaf Pickup
2,558.25
Professional Services Total:
6,179.73
72184
11/21/2013
Storm Drainage
Training
University of Minnesota
Quantifying Nutrient Removal By Str
20.00
Training Total:
20.00
AP- Checks for Approval (11 /26/2013 - 9:53 AM) Page 15
Check Number
Check Date
Fund Name
Account Name
Vendor Name
Invoice Desc.
Amount
Fund Total:
7,820.14
72154
11/21/2013
Street Construction
Twin Lakes Walmart Rd
New Look Contracting, Inc. Wal Mart Improvement Project
174,060.88
Twin Lakes Walmart Rd Total:
174,060.88
Fund Total:
174,060.88
72175
11/21/2013
Telecommunications
Life Ins. Employee
Standard Insurance
Company Life Insurance Premium -Nov 2013 -P(
29.25
Life Ins. Employee Total:
29.25
72175
11/21/2013
Telecommunications
Life Ins. Employer
Standard Insurance
Company Life Insurance Premium -Nov 2013 -P(
7.68
Life Ins. Employer Total:
7.68
72175
11/21/2013
Telecommunications
Long Term Disability
Standard Insurance
Company Life Insurance Premium -Nov 2013 -P(
18.01
Long Term Disability Total:
18.01
72155
11/21/2013
Telecommunications
Medical Ins Employee
NJPA
Health Insurance Premium -Nov 2013
410.64
Medical Ins Employee Total:
410.64
72155
11/21/2013
Telecommunications
Medical Ins Employer
NJPA
Health Insurance Premium -Nov 2013
627.00
Medical Ins Employer Total:
627.00
72123
11/21/2013
Telecommunications
Professional Services
CivicPlus
Annual Hosting & Support Fee
6,957.44
Professional Services Total:
6,957.44
Fund Total:
8,050.02
72119
11/21/2013
Telephone
PSTN -PRI Access/DID Allocation
CenturyLink
Telephone
40.31
72119
11/21/2013
Telephone
PSTN -PRI Access/DID Allocation
CenturyLink
Telephone
106.24
72119
11/21/2013
Telephone
PSTN -PRI Access/DID Allocation
CenturyLink
Telephone
95.70
AP- Checks for Approval (11 /26/2013 -
9:53 AM)
Page 16
Check Number Check Date Fund Name
72119 11/21/2013 Telephone
72119 11/21/2013 Telephone
72136 11/21/2013 Telephone
72190 11/21/2013 Water Fund
Account Name Vendor Name Invoice Desc. Amount
PSTN -PRI Access/DID Allocation CenturyLink Telephone 57.31
PSTN -PRI Access/DID Allocation CenturyLink Telephone 210.46
PSTN -PRI Access/DID Allocation Integra Telecom Telephone 348.54
2012 Watermain Lining
72114
11/21/2013
Water Fund
Accounts Payable
72116
11/21/2013
Water Fund
Accounts Payable
72124
11/21/2013
Water Fund
Accounts Payable
72145
11/21/2013
Water Fund
Accounts Payable
72147
11/21/2013
Water Fund
Accounts Payable
72151
11/21/2013
Water Fund
Accounts Payable
72158
11/21/2013
Water Fund
Accounts Payable
72160
11/21/2013
Water Fund
Accounts Payable
72162
11/21/2013
Water Fund
Accounts Payable
72169
11/21/2013
Water Fund
Accounts Payable
72191
11/21/2013
Water Fund
Accounts Payable
72192
11/21/2013
Water Fund
Accounts Payable
72111
11/21/2013
Water Fund
Hydrant Meter Deposits
72137
11/21/2013
Water Fund
Hydrant Meter Deposits
72175
11/21/2013
Water Fund
Life Ins. Employee
72175
11/21/2013
Water Fund
Life Ins. Employer
AP- Checks for Approval (11 /26/2013 - 9:53 AM)
PSTN -PRI Access/DID Allocation Total: 858.56
Fund Total:
858.56
Veit & Company, Inc. Watermain Lining
235,167.28
2012 Watermain Lining Total:
235,167.28
ROBERT BARONA Refund Check
28.36
TIMOTHY & ELIZABETH BURQI Refund Check
413.63
ROBERT COLEMAN Refund Check
28.34
VIRGINIA MCDERMOTT Refund Check
311.25
ED & LISA MERRIAM Refund Check
19.31
DR ALBERT MOWLEM Refund Check
129.61
ANTHONY & LAURA PAYNE Refund Check
33.85
JOHN PICHE Refund Check
258.48
EDWARD POTHEN Refund Check
420.84
JOHN & DONNA RUTFORD Refund Check
5.09
CHARLES WILLIAMS Jr Reissue of Uncashed Check -71335
6.77
NICOLE WYMAN Refund Check
16.74
Accounts Payable Total:
1,672.27
Ace Blacktop, Inc. Hydrant Meter Refund
1,100.00
Ray Jordan Hydrant Meter Refund
1,100.00
Hydrant Meter Deposits Total:
2,200.00
Standard Insurance Company Life Insurance Premium -Nov 2013 -Pc
47.65
Life Ins. Employee Total:
47.65
Standard Insurance Company Life Insurance Premium -Nov 2013 -Pc
53.43
Life Ins. Employer Total:
53.43
Page 17
Check Number
Check Date
Fund Name
Account Name
Vendor Name
Invoice Desc.
Amount
72175
11/21/2013
Water Fund
Long Term Disability
Standard Insurance Company Life Insurance Premium -Nov 2013 -P(
82.64
Long Term Disability Total:
82.64
72155
11/21/2013
Water Fund
Medical Ins Employee
NJPA
Health Insurance Premium -Nov 2013
612.10
Medical Ins Employee Total:
612.10
72155
11/21/2013
Water Fund
Medical Ins Employer
NJPA
Health Insurance Premium -Nov 2013
2,204.64
Medical Ins Employer Total:
2,204.64
72111
11/21/2013
Water Fund
Miscellaneous Revenue
Ace Blacktop, Inc.
Hydrant Meter Refund
-40.00
Miscellaneous Revenue Total:
-40.00
0
11/21/2013
Water Fund
Professional Services
Ecoenvelopes, LLC
Utility Billing Section 001
121.48
72167
11/21/2013
Water Fund
Professional Services
Robarge Enterprises,
Inc. Operating Valve Nut Replacement
1,913.06
Professional Services Total:
2,034.54
72111
11/21/2013
Water Fund
State Sales Tax Payable
Ace Blacktop, Inc.
Hydrant Meter Refund
-3.46
State Sales Tax Payable Total:
-3.46
0
11/21/2013
Water Fund
Utilities
Xcel Energy
Water Tower
3,668.45
Utilities Total:
3,668.45
72111
11/21/2013
Water Fund
Water - Roseville
Ace Blacktop, Inc.
Hydrant Meter Refund
-48.60
Water - Roseville Total:
-48.60
Fund Total: 247,650.94
Report Total: 650,634.43
AP- Checks for Approval (11 /26/2013 - 9:53 AM) Page 18
Department Approval
ks�'WSEN+hihE
r
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Date: 12/02/2013
Item No.: 7.b
City Manager Approval
Item Description: Approval of 2013 Business and Other Licenses
BACKGROUND
Chapter 3 01 of the City Code requires all applications for business and other licenses to be submitted to the City
Ij Council for approval. The following application(s) is (are) submitted for consideration:
4
5 Massame Therapist License
6 Jennifer Cunningham
7 Massage by Jennifer, LLC at Roseville Hair Design
s 1129 Larpenteur Ave W
9 Roseville, MN 55113
10
11 Massame Therapy Establishment License
in Massage by Jennifer, LLC at Roseville Hair Design
q 1129 Larpenteur Ave W
14 Roseville, MN 55113
15
16
17 POLICY OBJECTIVE
18 Required by City Code
19 FINANCIAL IMPACTS
20 The correct fees were paid to the City at the time the application(s) were made.
aI STAFF RECOMMENDATION
22 Staff has reviewed the applications and has determined that the applicant(s) meet all City requirements. Staff
recommends approval of the license(s).
?_4 REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION
Motion to approve the business and other license application(s) pending successful background checks.
Prepared by: Chris Miller, Finance Director
Attachments: A: Applications
R4CIT711 7TY T "
.*9E V JL I j I Odlij
Finance Department, License Division
2660 Civic Center Drive, Rosevffle, MN 55113
(651)792-7036
Massage Therapist License
(Please Print Clearly)
XNew License El Renewal
For License Year Ending June 30, CPO
1. Full Legal Name (Please Print CAA_nn)nqk
(I -Act)
2. Home Address
(Street)
3. Telephone
4. Date of Birth (mm/dd/yyyy)_
5. Driver's License Number
6. Ethnicity:
7. Sex:
8. Email Address
An
(City) (State)
[KCell El Home ® Work
inn
AC.4,41a)
(zip)
State of Issuance Mo.
9. Have you ever used or been known by any name other than the legal name given in number I above?
El Yes Y4 No If Yes, List each full name along with dates and places wbcrc used.
ame and address of the licensed Massage Therapy Establishment at which you expect to be employed:
1'ef_ e, 14i ci LavpP_nittKr AvQ VJ co�-%�Jj
%J
11. Have you held an e ous massage therapist licenses? If yes, in which city were you licensed?
Yes x I
Y p l zr' , " N
P Le- " M', No
12. If you answered Yes to number I I above, were any previous massage therapist licenses revok4 suspended or
not renewed?
C1 Yes )I�No 0 N/A
If yes, explain in detail on a separate page.
By signing below you certify that the above information is correct and authorize the City of Roseville Politic
Department to run your information for the required background checks..
Signature CLC k-1 -A- Date /'�a o
m id* or hand - deliver ith a certified copy of a diploma or certificate of graduation
0 1 1
Please print this form and er a14) P
from a school of massage therapy including proof of a rn xYimum of 600 hours in successfully completed course
work as described in Rnseville Ordirmce 1161 Massage Therapy Establishments.
License Fee is $100,00
Make checks payable to: City of Roseville
k 4
V TI-JI A
Vi
Finance Department, License Division
2 &
2660 Cmr- Center Drive, Roseville, MN. 55113
(651) 792-7036
Massage Therapy Establishment License Application
ANew Licease 0 Renewal (Please Print Clearly)
For License Year Ending June 30,
Business Name LL. r-7-
Business Address
Business Phone 0
Email Address
Person to Contact in Regard to Business License:
Full Legal Name (Please Print) CLL*rl n I
il 0300+1
Home Address.
(street)
Telephone.
Date of Birth (mnVdd/yy
� yy)_
Driver's License Number—
Ethnicity:
Sex:
nil
(City) (State) (zip)
6Cell Ll Home 0 Work
State of Issuance M N
Have you cvcr usod or been known by any name other than the legal name given above?
[ Yes 6 'No If Yes, List each frill name along with dales and places where used.
Has the business held any previous massage therapy eslRblishmeiit hoenscs? If yes, in which city was it licensed?
tA' j
K Yes L~ZX, P
I 1 - rA(.3rN t, LJ No
ne undersigned applicant makes this application pursuant to all laws of the State of Mimesota and regulation as the
Councit of the City of Roseville may from time to time prescribe, including Mimiesula Statue #176.182. In
addition, the applicant acknowled ges that they are responsible for reviewingthe -backi-gowda, work - histy of
ud
their employmincluding these that have received a rnassag,,e theranist license from the -
By signing below, the applicant certifies that the above information is correct and authorizes the City of Roseville
Police Department to Tun bi.kAcr information for the required background checks.
Signawre Date 4.
Liceme Fee is $300.00
Additional $150 background check fee for all first-time applicants
Make checks payable to: City of Roseville
1J,
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Date: 12/2/13
Item No. 7.c
Department Approval City Manager Approval
Item Description: Extension of Janitorial Services Contract for City of Roseville Facilities
1 BACKGROUND
2 The City of Roseville contract for janitorial services for City facilities expires February 2014.
3 This contract was bid with an option to extend by mutual agreement for an additional three years
4 at the conclusion of the initial contract period. Linn Building Maintenance, the current provider
5 of these services for certain city facilities, has indicated a desire to extend their current contract
U an additional three years at an increase of 2 percent the first year, 2 percent the second year, and
7 2 percent the third year. Linn Building Maintenance did not increase their fee during the current
8 three year contract.
9 The specifications require janitorial service at City Hall, the Fire Station, Harriet Alexander
lo Nature Center, the Skating Center, the Public Works Building, and the License Center. The
11 current cost for these facilities is $7,370.10 per month. The city receives 80 hours per week of
12 service under the contract.
13 Linn has provided good and consistent service over the past three years. They have been
14 responsive to our janitorial needs. Linn Building Maintenance has indicated they can provide
15 additional service at this pricing if requested by the city.
16 POLICY OBJECTIVE
The city budgets annually to maintain facilities that are clean, safe, and healthy for staff and
13 other users. Janitorial services are bid competitively to ensure the best value for these services.
1PY BUDGET IMPLICATIONS
20 The extension of the service contract can be absorbed within the proposed 2014 budgeted
amount. Staff checked with other providers as to their service rates and found Linn Building
99 Maintenance rates competitive. We found no evidence to indicate a better price or value can be
secured by going to bid at this time.
24 STAFF RECOMMENDATION
9F Staff recommends a three year extension of the existing janitorial service contract with Linn
16, Building Maintenance Services at a monthly cost of $7,517.50.
27 REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION
28 Consider a motion to authorize extending the current contract for janitorial services for City
29 facilities with Linn Building Maintenance through February, 2017, at a not -to- exceed annual
30 increase of 2 % in 2014, 2 % in 2015, and 2 % in 2016.
Prepared by: Duane Schwartz, Public Works Director and Patrick Dolan, Public Works Supervisor
Page 1 of 1
Department Approval
e' /4-e4
qASEN+L�hE
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Date: 12/02/2013
Item No.: 12. a
City Manager Approval
Item Description: Conduct a Final Hearing on the 2014 Tax Levy and Budget
BACKGROUND
Under State Statutes, most cities are required to hold a budget hearing before adopting a final tax levy
and budget. The purpose of the hearing is to provide citizens with an opportunity to express their views
on the budget and tax levy.
City Staff will present an overview of the proposed budget at the hearing. The final tax levy and budget
is scheduled to be adopted at the December 9, 2013 Council meeting.
POLICY OBJECTIVE
Conducting a budget hearing before adopting a final budget and tax levy is required under Mn State
Statutes.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
"12 See attached.
13 STAFF RECOMMENDATION
14 Not applicable.
15 REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION
16 Not applicable.
17
16
Prepared by: Chris Miller, Finance Director
Attachments: A: Presentation of the 2014 Proposed Budget and Tax Levy
Page 1 of 1
11/27/2013
Attachment A
City of Roseville
2014 Budget Hearing
Presented December 2, 2013
City of Roseville
Proposed 2014 Budget
& Tax Levy
City of Roseville
2014 Budget Hearing
Discussion Topics:
Presented December 2, 2013
•'• Purpose of the Hearing
❖ Quick Budget Snapshot
❖ Budget Process Chronology
❖ Budget Impact Items
❖ Budget & Tax Levy Summary
❖ Tax Levy Information (historical and peer city comparisons)
•'• Utility Rate Summary
1
City of Roseville
2014 Budget Hearing
Purpose of the Budget Hearing:
Presented December 2, 2013
•:� To provide information on the upcoming year's budget and tax levy impact
•:� To provide citizens an opportunity to express their views on the budget and
levy
*:* Tonight's presentation will focus on the C portion of your property tax
bill and other local fees
City of Roseville
2014 Budget Hearing
Presented December 2, 2013
Quick Budget Snapshot for a Single - Family Home * * :
* *** 2014 Property Tax Bill = $65.54 per month
*:* An increase of $4.47 per month
*:* Approximately half the increase is due to higher spending; and half is due
to valuation increase
*:* 2014 Utility Bill = $57.37 per month
*:* An increase of $2.55 per month
*:* 2014 Total Cost of City Service = $122.91 per month
*:* An increase of $7.02 per month
* * For a median - valued home that uses an average amount of water
11/27/2013
2
City of Roseville
2014 Budget Hearing Presented December 2, 2013
Budget Process Chronology — Key Dates:
❖ Review of the 2013 City Council Budget Directives (March 11, 2013)
❖ Review of the 2014 -2017 Strategic Plan (March 18, 2013)
❖ Preliminary discussion on City Council Budget Program Priorities (April 1s and
22, 2013)
❖ Public Hearing to Solicit Comments on the Budget and Taxes (May 13, 2013)
❖ Review the Reports and Recommendations from the CIP /Budget
Committee (May 20, 2013)
❖ Overview of Departmental Budget Priorities, Issues, & Challenges (July 1s &
18, 2013)
❖ Supplemental discussion on the 2014 City Council Budget Priorities (July 22,
2013)
❖ Presentation of the City Manager Recommended Budget (August 19, 2013)
❖ Preliminary Budget and Tax Levy adoption (September 9, 2013)
City of Roseville
2014 Budget Hearing Presented December 2, 2013
Budget Impact Items:
❖ Debt service for Park Renewal Bonds - $56000
❖ Police and Fire Dispatch - $65,000
❖ Employee cost -of- living adjustment - $165,000
❖ Employee wage step increases - $80,000
❖ Employee market wage adjustments - $177,000
❖ Employee healthcare increases - $50,000
❖ PERA increase mandate - $3000
❖ Organizational changes in Administration, Public Works, Parks &
Recreation, and Information Technology divisions
❖ General inflation and Overtime (offset by sales tax exemption, Fire Relief contribution,
Wellness Program)
❖ Sales tax exemption will save the City approximately $200,000 cilywide
11/27/2013
3
City of Roseville
2014 Budget Hearing
Budget & Tax Levy Summary:
Presented December 2, 2013
•:� Proposed Budget overall is $50,635,225
•:� Proposed Budget for the tax - supported programs is $23,008,060, an
increase of $1,223,258 or 5.6%
•:� Proposed Tax Levy ** is $18,028,721, an increase of $758,895 or 4.4%
*:* Of this increase, only $198,895 is for day -to -day operations
•:� Single family home property taxes * * _ $65.54 per month, an increase of
$4.47 per month
•:- * * Excludes HRA Levy. HRA Levy impact = $2.81 per month
City of Roseville
2014 Budget Hearing
Budget & Tax Levy Summary:
* *** In exchange for $65 per month, residents receive:
Presented December 2, 2013
a) 24x7x365 police, fire, & emergency medial services protection
b) Well maintained city streets
c) Full offering of park amenities
d) Sidewalk and pathway connections
e) Street lighting, nuisance code enforcement, and other services
f) Professionally- managed administrative, financial, and legal functions
11/27/2013
al
City of Roseville
2014 Budget Hearing
Budget & Tax Levy Summary:
Presented December 2, 2013
•:* By comparison to the $65 per month, residents also pay approximately:
a) $71 /month for mobile smart phone service (source: JD Power & Associates)
b) $120 /month for gas & electricity (source: Center Point, Xcel Energy)
c) $80 -140 /month for Cable TV /broadband internet (source: Century Link, Comcast)
City of Roseville
2014 Budget Hearing Presented December 2, 2013
Tax Levy Information:
1994 - 2003 Cumulative Increase
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
— * —% Change in Levy f% Change in CPI
Comments:
•:� 1994 -2003: General policy that limited tax levy increases to the CPI
•:� This Policy was preceded by a period of significant street replacement and park facility
construction programs
11/27/2013
0
City of Roseville
2014 Budget Hearing
Presented December 2, 2013
Tax Levy Information:
2004 - 2013 Cumulative Increase
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0% ........�
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
a
0.0%
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
2012 2013
—*—% Change in Levy t% Change in CPI
Comments:
•:� 2006 -2010: Recessionary period that resulted in stagnant or declining non -tax revenues
•:� 2008 -2013: Reinvestment period of additional capital replacement
City of Roseville
2014 Budget Hearing
Tax Levy Information:
Local Tax Rate Comparison **
1995-2013
Presented December 2, 2013
a
45
a
35
H
25
■
15
1995
2000
2005
2010
2013
** Metro area cities with a
population greater than 10,000 (Roseville (Peer Average
In 1995, Roseville was 17% below the peer average. Today, we're 18% below average.
11/27/2013
0
City of Roseville
2014 Budget Hearing
Utility Rate Summary:
Presented December 2, 2013
❖ Annual analysis of utility operations to determine whether rate adjustments
are necessary
❖ Analysis looks at:
a) Fixed costs such as personnel, supplies & maintenance, and capital
replacements
b) Variable costs such as the purchase of water and wastewater treatment
c) Customer consumption patterns
❖ Rate analysis is not an exact science
a) Includes assumptions on customer behavior and long -term capital
replacements costs
b) These factors can fluctuate from year to year
City of Roseville
2014 Budget Hearing
Presented December 2, 2013
Utility Rate Summary:
❖ 2014 Estimated Impact for a Single- Family
Home**:
Single Family Homes
Service 2013
2014
$ Increase % Increase
Water - base fee 49.50
54.45
4.95
Water - usage fee 38.70
39.60
0.90
Sanitary Sewer - base fee 37.35
37.35
-
Sanitary Sewer - usage fee 21.75
24.00
2.25
Storm Sewer 11.15
11.70
0.55
Recycling 6.00
5.00
(1.00)
Total per Quarter $ 164.45 $
172.10
$ 7.65 4.65%
Avg. Water consumption (1,000 gals.) 18
Avg. Sewer consumption (1,000 gals.) 15
* * For a typical home that uses an average amount of water
11/27/2013
7
City of Roseville
2014 Budget Hearing
Utility Rate Summary:
Presented December 2, 2013
❖ Peer City rate comparison:
a) 1 st ring suburbs
b) Population 18,000 - 50,000
c) Stand -alone systems
❖ Local priorities and funding philosophies can create wide disparities in rates
City of Roseville
2014 Budget Hearing Presented December 2, 2013
Utility Rate Summary
2013 Water Charge Comparison
$100
$80
$60
$40
$20 ■
titi��
�`a'
G
❖ Roseville's water rates are higher than peer cities, however:
a) Water delivered to customers is already softened
b) Water infrastructure is funded through rates not assessments like other cities
c) Roseville is in an infrastructure replacement cycle requiring higher funding levels
11/27/2013
0 •
City of Roseville
2014 Budget Hearing
Utility Rate Summary
$120
$100
$80
$60
$40
2013 Sewer Charge Comparison
XP
G
Presented December 2, 2013
ell
•:* Roseville's sewer rates are slightly below the average for peer cities
City of Roseville
2014 Budget Hearing
Utility Rate Summary
2013 Taxes + Water & Sewer Comparison
$1,800
$1,600
$1,400 -
$1,200
-F
$1,000 AL
G
Presented December 2, 2013
11/27/2013
E
City of Roseville
2014 Budget Hearing
Questions?
Presented December 2, 2013
11/27/2013
10
KI;�6_01SEN+h+E
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Date: 12/2/13
Item No.: 12.b
Department Approval City Manager Approval
Item Description: Consider Creation of a Volunteer Coordinator Position
1 BACKGROUND
2
3 At the October 28th City Council meeting, staff provided a report regarding the creation of a
4 volunteer coordinator position. Based on the presentation and discussion, the City Council
5 instructed staff to bring the creation of the Volunteer Coordinator position back to a future
6 meeting for action on funding as part of the 2014 City Budget.
8 Since that time, the Interim City Manager has discussed with the Department Heads how this
9 position would fit in the overall organization and how it could be utilized be all of the
10 departments. There is a general recognition by the Department Heads on the value of having
volunteers and thus the need to have a person to manage the volunteer network. While not all
12 departments utilize volunteers presently, there is a recognition by all Department Heads that they
13 are a great asset to the City and its operations.
14
15 During the discussion with the City Council on October 28th, potential funding and staff options
were presented. The City Council discussed starting the City's volunteer management efforts as
a pilot project. Given the challenge in fully funding a position currently but driven by the need
1 to more effectively manage our volunteers, the Interim City Manager has had discussions with
19 Roseville Parks and Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke about having a pilot project to manage
20 the numerous volunteers that help out the Park and Recreation Department's various operations.
21
22 From the discussions, it was felt that utilizing a volunteer coordinator to work with the Park and
23 Recreation volunteer network would be beneficial for not only the department but also for the
24 volunteers. Initially, it is proposed that the City create a half -time Volunteer Coordinator
25 position focused solely on Park and Recreation volunteers. The new position would first create a
26 framework on how the manage the volunteers, including creating a data base of the volunteers.
27 This position would then work with staff to identify volunteer opportunities and to manage and
28 assign volunteers to events and work.
29
30 Staff believes that the costs of a part -time position would be about $20,000, including wages,
31 equipment, and supplies.
32
33 POLICY OBJECTIVE
34 The creation of a Volunteer Coordinator position is consistent with several Imagine Roseville
Ir, 2025 Goals, including making Roseville a welcoming and inclusive community and one that is
Page 1 of 2
desirable to live, work, and play. In addition, the new position is consistent with the
recommendation of the Civic Engagement Task Force.
3, BUDGET IMPLICATIONS
39 It is proposed that the costs for the part -time Volunteer Coordinator position be part of the 2014
40 City Budget, with $20,000 being removed from the City contingency line item. This transfer
41 will leave approximately $35,000 left for contingency purposes.
42 STAFF RECOMMENDATION
4
4 Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the creation of the part -time Volunteer
4G Coordinator as part of the 2014 budget, with $20,000 of the City contingency budget being
4 utilized to fund the position.
4-- REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION
4( Motion to authorize the creation of the part -time Volunteer Coordinator as part of the 2014
4(; budget, with $20,000 of the City contingency budget being utilized to fund the position.
Prepared by: Patrick Trudgeon, Interim City Manager (651) 792 -7021
Attachments: A: October 28, 2013 Roseville RCA regarding the Volunteer Coordinator position.
B: October 28, 2013 Roseville City Council minutes
Page 2 of 2
1 H
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Attachment A
Date: 10/28/13
Item No.:
Department Approval City Manager Approval
Item Description: Consider Creation of a Volunteer Coordinator Position
1 BACKGROUND
2
3 For the past several years, the Park and Recreation Commission and the City Council have
4 discussed the need for the creation of a Volunteer Coordinator position. The need for the
5 position has been generated by the desire to more effectively manage the volunteers that the City
6 already has and to lessen the load of an already busy staff. It is also hoped that having a
7 volunteer coordinator will help the City recruit more volunteers to assist in City needs.
9 In the draft 2014 City Manager's recommended budget, the Volunteer Coordinator position was
10 not funded due to limited needs and other priorities. However, the City Council has expressed a
desire to have a more discussion on the possibility of funding a Volunteer Coordinator within the
12 2014 budget. This report will review what other cities are doing in regards to managing their
13 volunteers, discuss the challenges and opportunities of having a volunteer coordinator, review
14 how a volunteer would fit and operate within the organization, and provide options for the City
15 Council to consider in moving forward in implementing a volunteer coordinator.
16
17 Volunteer Coordination in other cities.
18
19 Most cities have some level of volunteerism with the City. Staff was able to find that several
20 cities have dedicated staff to coordinate volunteer activities. These include St. Paul, St. Louis
21 Park, Plymouth, Maple Grove, Bloomington, and Burnsville.
22
23 The Interim City Manager met with Jackie Maas, the Volunteer Coordinator with the City of
24 Plymouth. Ms. Maas indicated that Plymouth has had a staff person dedicated for volunteer
25 coordination for 20 years. The position was originally part -time and focused primarily on Park
26 and Recreation needs. Over time, the position was made full -time and serves the volunteer needs
27 for all of the City Departments, although the position still resides in the Park and Recreation
28 Department. The position is funded by the general tax levy.
29
30 Ms. Maas indicated that Plymouth has about 1000 active volunteers. These volunteers range
31 from youth sports coaches, police reserves, residents who adopt parks, trails, and streets, provide
32 help at community events and provide office clerical duties. The volunteers range from high
33 school students, to young adults, parents, and retirees.
34
35 Ms. Maas indicated that overall the use of volunteers within the city has been a positive
36 experience that has allowed the City to extend their resources and provide for additional services.
37 Ms. Maas also indicates that volunteers do come with a cost, both to recruit and track the
Page 1 of 4
38 volunteers as well the time needed to supervise within each department. Ms. Maas does the
39 initial recruitment and screening, but the actual supervision of the volunteers falls to the
40 individual department that utilizes the volunteer. She said it is important for everyone to
41 understand that department staff and not the Volunteer Cooridinator will be supervising the
4, volunteer and overseeing their work. She indicated that all of Plymouth's departments utilize
4? volunteers to some extent and despite some initial reluctance, have all embraced the use of
44 volunteers.
4f.
4 Challenges and Opportunities
4d
4� In talking to the City of Plymouth and review other literature, there are some challenges when
4( implementing a volunteer program. One is to make sure that there all staff buy -in. There may be
ri f concern of how much time it will take to oversee volunteers. There will also be a concern that
b'i the volunteers will replace paid staff. Finally there might be concern of given access to restricted
52 areas or restricted information.
5a.
54 Having a vibrant volunteer network can bring new energy and excitement to routine tasks.
55 Volunteers will also bring new ideas and skill sets to the City that can be utilized. Perhaps most
56 important benefit with the use of volunteers is that it creates a great connection between city staff
57 and operations and the residents. In fact, the use of volunteers can lead to extensive community
58 engagement. Volunteers with the City will better understand the City's programs and services
59 through their service time and will feel more connected and have more pride with the City due to
60 their service. In addition, the use of volunteers will allow city staff to interact with residents on a
61 daily basis on issues of mutual interest.
62
6%1 Volunteer Coordinator within City Organization
64
6L It is clear that having a volunteer coordinator would be a great benefit to the City organization as
66 a whole and will provide for better services. Although the Park and Recreation Department has
67 the largest number of volunteers, staff proposes that any new position would serve all of the
68 departments and be housed in Administration. This arrangement would not only allow for the
69 Volunteer Coordinator to provide services to all departments, the Interim City Manager sees this
70 position also coordinating the City's community engagement efforts. It would seem that working
71 with volunteers is at the heart of community engagement.
7
7 For the most part, the use of volunteers will not take place at City Hall, but within the
7 community and in neighborhoods. The coordination and use of volunteers is perhaps the best
7: form of community engagement. The volunteers will invest their time and talents into the
7 community and take ownership in their efforts. Volunteering will cause people to have pride in
77 Roseville and feel better connected to the community.
78
79 The Interim City Manager sees a great possibility of the Volunteer Coordinator position as being
8o able not only better oversee the use of volunteers within Roseville , but also address some of the
81 findings from the Community Engagement Task Force.
82
83 Options for Consideration
84
85 The biggest challenge for moving forward with the creation of the Volunteer Coordinator
8F position is funding. Exact costs have not been calculated, but it can be expected that staff costs
Page 2 of 4
87 (salary and benefits) would be anywhere from $60,000 to $80,000. There would also be
ss equipment costs for the employee (computer, software, operating materials) of around $5,000
ss annually. Some potential funding options for the City Council to consider are listed below:
90
91 Use of 2014 Levy: With the levy limits in place, there is limited opportunity for the use of levy
92 dollars. As previous budget discussion have identified uses of these levy dollars, the creation of
93 this position will require that another need is not funded.
94
95 Use of reserves in 2014, levy dollars in 2015. This option would fund the position in 2014
96 through the use of reserves. In 2015, levy dollars would need to be allocated to fund the
97 position. As the 2014 budget is already proposing the use of reserves that will need to be funded
ss in 2015, this option will put a bigger strain on the 2015 levy. It should be noted that initial
99 budget discussion indicated a greater need for the use of reserves to fund the 2014 budget than
loo are currently needed.
101
102 Use of enterprise funds. As enterprise funds receive revenue streams from very specific
cos activities and must be spent in accordance with those activities, it does not seem to viable to use
Boa enterprise funds to fund a volunteer coordinator position.
105
cos Create ahalf -time position. The costs of half -time position would perhaps be more attainable to
107 fund in 2014. Creating ahalf -time position would allow for the City to begin to better manage
cos volunteers with the expectation that this position could expand into full -time over time as the
log volunteer network expands.
110
111 Delay timing of creation of the position (middle of the year). Creating the position in the middle
112 of the year will cut the 2014 cost in half. However, the full amount would need to be funded in
113 2015, most likely through the levy. Once again this will put pressure on the 2015 levy.
114
115 Delay creation of the position until 2015. In 2015, there may be a better ability to fund the
116 position through the levy. However, the possible imposition of levy limits, the use of reserves in
117 2014, and other desired needs, may make the funding of the position difficult in 2015. This
1 1 a option also delays implementation of a desired position.
119
120 POLICY OBJECTIVE
121 The creation of a Volunteer Coordinator position is consistent with several Imagine Roseville
122 2025 Goals, including making Roseville a welcoming and inclusive community and one that is
123 desirable to live, work, and play. In addition, the new position is consistent with the
124 recommendation of the Civic Engagement Task Force.
125 BUDGET IMPLICATIONS
126 Depending on the option chosen costs to create and maintain a Volunteer Coordinator position
127 will range from $40,000 to $85,000.
128 STAFF RECOMMENDATION
129
13o Given the funding limitations and the need to take measured steps in managing the City's
131 volunteers, the Interim City Manager recommends that the Council creates a half -time volunteer
132 coordinator housed in the Administration Department with funding coming from reserves in
Page 3 of 4
13%�' 2014 and levy dollars starting in 2015. It is expected that the annual costs of the part -time
13- Volunteer Coordinator position will be $40,000.
135 REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION
13E The City Council should review and discuss the information and provide staff with direction on
13 how to proceed.
Prepared by: Patrick Trudgeon, Interim City Manager (651) 792 -7021
Attachments: A: City of Plymouth Annual Volunteer Report
Page 4 of 4
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, October 28, 2 013
Page 10-
Attachment B
censed/inoperable vehicles (one pick-up track and two trailers); at a total cost es-
timated at $1 �200.00.
Roll Call
Ayes: Willinups; Laliberte; Etten; McGehee; and Roe.
Nays: None.
Mayor Roe also thanked staff for their follow-through with these nuisance issues
throughout the community.
14. Business Items — Presentations/Discussions
a. Asset Management Update
This item was removed froni tonight, s due to technical difficulties in making the
presentation electronically.
b. Volunteer Coordinator Discussion
Interim City Manager Patrick Trudgeon provided a review of this position, as de-
t 'led in the RCA dated October 28 2013. Mr. Trudgeon noted that his research
al
Frith other communities had proven interesting to review how they leveraged ex-
isting help in the community and lessons the City of Roseville could develop for a
working model. Mr. Trudgeon reported that he found the City of Pivniouth's ex-
periences and operating model of particular interest.
Specific to the City of Roseville, Mr. Trudgeon provided his recommendations in
locating the Volunteer Coordinator position in the Administration Department to
send a clear message that it was available to serve all departments, and also to link
the position as a response to community engagement efforts. While not yet hav-
ing fully calculated exact costs for the position, Mr. Trudgeon advised that a full-
time position would probably range in the $60,000 to $80,000 range, in addition
to $5,000 annually for supplies and equipment related to the position.
However, Mr. Trudgeoll FeWgllized that the biggest challenge in implementing
the position would be short-temi fund' I
ing and long-term sustainable funding. Mr.
Trod {on provided several options for consideration and to initiate discussions, as
detal I ed in the RCA.
At the request of Councilmember Willmgas, Mr. Trudgeon advised that the City of
Plymouth had not provided in-kind contribution inforinatione nor did he currently
have any projections available for a FTE equivalent for Roseville.
Regarding housing this position within Administration, while he had ofiginally
supported this, Councilmember Willmus opined that given the vast experience of
the Parks & Recreation Department and Police Reserves on an annual basis, be
now found himself leaning toward at least initiating the program under the guld-
%e
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, October 28, 2013
Page 11
.nee of those departments due to their previous work with volunteers. Coun-
cilmember Willmus questioned if the Administration Department would be able
to provide that same knowledge base.
Mayor Roe noted the extensive number of volunteers and groups who have pro-
vided their services for many years in Roseville; and clan'fied that creating this
Coordinator position was not about creating volunteers.
Parks & Recreation Director Brokke expressed the City"s appreciation for its vol-
unteers., noting that the City couldn't do what it did without them, estimating that
approximately 2,600 volunteers had been identified annually, providing an esti-
mated 27,000 hours in the parks, recreation programs, coaches, adopt - -park pro-
gram, and special events. Of that number, Mr. Brokke noted that some were one-
time volunteers, and some volunteered in multiple areas. Mr. Brokke farther not-
ed that currently approximately 80% to 90% of the City's park system was adopt-
ed out to various groups and/or individuals in neighborhoods throughout the City;
further adding to those services and numbers.
Mr. Trudgeon noted that, while there was a great need in the Parks & Recreation
Department, and flexibility was available with where to locate the position; he
recommended locating the position in the Administration Department to provide
the aCCUTate perception that it is a visible, city-wide service, and not affiliated
with any one department. While supporting getting something initiated based on
the huge demand for management of Parks & Recreation volunteers, Mr. Trudg-
eon asked that the position could morph into a city-wide transition over time, but
It was important now to get someone on board to manage the city's volunteer
workforce.
In her review of the information provided from the City of Plymouth, Coun-
cilmember McGehee observed the various and interesting areas for volunteers
(e.g. translation opportunities within the Police Department, and Environmental
Research). Ccurd lmember McGehee expressed her awareness of the number of
oldier residents in the community interested in volunteering and perform ing cleri-
cal work at City Hall. While reed .gnizing, the established format already available
in the Parks & Recreation Department, Councilmember McGehee supported the
civic engagement aspect, and therefore supported establishing the position in the
Administration Department, even though the bulk of the position may be specifi-
cally related to the Parks & Recreation Department needs initially. Councilmem-
ber McGehee noted the need to avoid pigeon-holing the position to one depart-
ment, when volunteers could also be used for their expertise in grant wfidng and
facilities meetings., as just two examples.
Councilmember Laliberte thanked Mr. Trudgeon for the detailed description in
the RCA and for his research. Wbile the City was already tracking volunteers for
various departments, Councilmember Laliberte noted that the position could serve
as an organizational gateway for a person coming into the City and becoming in-
-W
Regular City Council Meeting
M o nday, October 28, 2013
Page 12
vol d, which may currently be an aspect that is lacking. Counclimemleer
Laliberte opined that she wasn't comfortable with the use of reserves to fund the
position, initially or subsequently; and opined that with changes with the new
Communications Manager position alleviating communication functions in other
de par ments, some of the funds allocated for that portion of current positions
could be available for the Volunteer Coordinator position. Councilmember
LaIlberte suggested determining whether there was current staff who could per-
form the Volunteer Coordinator function or a change of functions among current
staff, as part of the overall reorganization of the City.
Councilmember tten expressed his appreciation of Mr. Trudgeon"s research on
this. NVhen reviewing areas that a Volunteer Coordinator could assist with, Coun-
ellmernber Eaten noted an example would be the upcoming Buckthom Removal
Program in Reservoir Woods scheduled for this weekend; noting that currently
Parks & Recreation management staff performed the coordination of efforts such
as them, and suggested their time and expertise could be more efficiently and ef-
fectively spent on other duties. Councilmember Etten, suggested other areas need-
ing coordination including the adopt -a. -park pro ram and expectations/supervision
of such groups; as well as heavier maintenance versus those necessary for staff to
perform, freeing staff to perform other needed services in a particular neighbor-
hood, with the overall goal to maximize and leverage ncw people throughout the
City, and move the, City forward.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Trudgeon responded that he was unaware of
any communities, other than perhaps in smaller communities, who had a "volun-
teer" Volunteer Coordinator position.
Mayor Roe spoke in support of freeing staff to utilize their expertise more produc-
tively and efficiently.
At the request of Councilmember tten, Mr. Brokke noted that volunteer efforts
were an everyday process, with some necessary, while others (e.g. natural re-
source efforts) were periodic and dependent at time on the interest of the com-
munity. However, Mr. Brokke noted that all of the efforts currently required
some staff time,, some substantial and others minimal, but noted that this position
would certainly reduce staff time.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Brokke advised that staff was very supportive
of the proposed Volunteer Coordinator position.
Mayor Roe opined that be was intrigued by how this position fit with the City's
communications efforts and how the Administration Department served other de-
partyntints, and providing a better connection to those communication efforts.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, October 28, 2013
Page 13
Mr. Br e noted that the Parks & Recreation Department had a volunteer coor-
dinator in the past, and had found it successful for a short time, as perfon-ned
when the Nature Center was opened in 1990, with that facility still prim arily op-
erating under volunteers, even with the volunteer coordinator position turning
over regularly.
Mayor Roe noted that this may be a strong recommendation for a staff position to
provide more consistency, whether volunteers were sought for a specific project
1* f
or spec ic interest or for general interests as they evolved.
Mr. Brokke noted that volunteers wanted some guidance from staff, and to be able
to follow City procedures or poliews as applicable.
Mayor Roe noted that this farther supported a Vol unteer Coordinator on staff.
Councilmember Willmus expressed support for a Volunteer Coordinator to pro-
vide logistical support of various programs and services; and with substantial and
well-documented data, a return on the investment for a position could be tracked.
Councilmember Willmus opined that he wanted to work through the details and
make this position happen in. 2014; however, he reiterated his struggle with budg-
et items, and how they tied together.. While supporting this direction as the best
way to pursue goals, Councilmember Willmus expressed his hope that it could be
attained by working together.
Councilmeniber McGehee echoed the collective comments; opinincy JD that she saw
this as an important function and part of the branding and civic engagement ef-
forts for the City, and also the potential to provide a lot of rewards to the City, not
all in financial terins, but in general community pride and good will that it could
engender. From her personal volunteer experience, Councilmember McGehee
noted the 'need to staff this "sales" position with the n person, with the right
skill set and personality, to address opportunities throughout the comm urn ity and
to become an integral part of staff, serving as a service person for all departments
within the City, with each project incoi-porated into the larger picture. C0111CUITIng
with Councilmember Laliberte, Councilmember McGehee opined that the com-
munication functions now in individual departments should free up time of cur-
rent staff to provide some additional allotment to this position.
CQuid lmember Laliberte suggested a pilot program for the first six months, while
the Communications staff was reorganized, whether finding someone inte mall
y
for a half-time position or from the reorganized communication staff, to enhance
volunteer tracking and data. Councilmember Laliberte opined that this could pro-
v idc information on how best to proceed and how a position could work in Rose-
ville. Councilinember Laliberte opined that the position was a great idea, but how
to do it and fund it needed further deten-DI'nation, initially how to best handle and
organize the Citvs current volunteer force. Council member Laliberte suggested
W
Regular City Cound"I Meeting
Monday, October 28, 2013
Page 14
that a show of good faith from departments would be, if all departments supported
the position and truly believed in it.. they should provide money to fund it through
cuts in their current budgets and tax levy to support it.
Regarding funding., Councilmember Eteen questioned if the position could be
funded in total or in part through the Communications Fund, if its goal was to
support community engagement and multiple formats for involving the communi-
ty. Councilmember tten expressed some concern with Councilmember Lai ber-
te'7s comment to perform the work in-house with a current position. While agree-
ing that more evaluation was needed to detennine how the position would best
WOTk, Councilmember Etten noted the need to respect and recognize staff's cur-
rent work load, and start down the path for a new position and staff person.
Councilmember Etten noted that there may be someone currently on staff who
was interested in the position, but questioned if it should be considered part of
their current or realigned workload.
Councilmember Laliberte suggested an Intern with the specific purpose of putting
together a structure or plan how to implement this Position, but reiterated her con-
cern that the position not be fully funded until additional data was available.
At the suggestion of Mayor Roe, Mr. Trudgeon agreed that additional internal.
discussions among staff were indicated, based on his observations of to night "s
discussion. Mr. Trudgeon admitted that he found the prospect intriguing for initi-
ating the position through a pilot program, to provide a measurement of needs and
more detailed understanding of an overall volunteer coordination effort. Mr.
Trudgeon expressed his concem in taking a current staff person, unless a current
part-time position was increased with additional hours, opining that he would
need to have further discussion with staff -regarding such an Option. In addressing
the potential for using funds from the Communications Fund, Mr. Trudgeon noted
that this was as close as he came to funding through use of an Enterprise Fund,
advising that use of those funds would be limited to specific areas and provide a
finite source with limited opportunities.
Mr. Trudgeon noted that the Intern position was also intriguing to him, and of-
fered to perform additional study to detenn,I'Lne a framework for such an option;
perhaps using the Parks & Recreation Department as a pilot program to determine
additional information.
Mr. Trudgeon advised that he would report back, to the City with his recommend-
ed next steps to ease into the position; and a determination of actual needs and po-
tential funding sources. Mr. Trudgeon admitted that not all departments were ini-
tially convinced of how much they could or would use volunteers, but noted
staff's willingness to keep an open mind. Mr. Trudgeon noted those departments
who had obvious needs (e.g. Parks & Recreation) while others that would be lim-
ited (e.g. Finance Department due to data privacy issues and concerns). Mr.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, October 28, 2013
Page 15
Trudgeon used the it of'Plymouth as an example where their Public Works De-
partment utilized someone skilled in AUTO-CAD applications to help them keep
their files updated on a more technical basis. While volunteer use would vary be-
tween and among departments, Mr. Trudgeon noted that most all could use addi-
tional help in managing their docuinents and filings. If dollars were taken out of
department budgets to fund a Volunteer Coordinator position, Mr. Trudgeon not-
ed that this would certainly get the message across and maximize thought pro-
cesses and resources. Mr. Trudgeon recognized that the City's Parks & Recrea-
tion Dep arts nent was light years beyond other departments in using volunteers-
however, he also recognized that evolution of this volunteer workforce was an
educational process, and in order to be successful, needed to be utilized by all de-
partments, thus his recommendation that it be an administration function,
Mayor Roe asked that Mr. Trudgeon take tonight's feedback and bring it back for
additional discussionin November if possL'ble;. with ideas of what aspects and op-
tions were or were not feasible, and staff- s response to tonight"s feedback, as well
as budget impacts and staff ideas for use of volunteers.
Mr. Trod geon concurred with that directive; opining that he was hearing a strong
desire by the City Council to use volunteers across departments, with staff di-
rected to make recommendations on how best to move forward and leverage that
position: and to report back on how best to get that action in place to move for-
ward.
Councilmember McGehee questioned the validity of a Pilot Program, someone
currently on staff for a six-month trial, or Intern versus simply taking action to es-
tablish the position and get it implemented. Councilmernber McGehee opined
that if it was going to be done, it should be done, with evaluation of the position
and whether or not it proves worthwhile beinjZ determined at that time; not just as
a potential without continuity and initial dn've required for recruitment., training
and retention.
Mayor Roe suggested that, if a Pilot Program or Intern option was taken., then at
the end of six months, the City Council needed to be committed to put a position
into effect based on those determinations and data., along with their budget com-
mitinent.
Mr. Trudgeon clarified staff-s direction, with Councilmember consensus, that a
Pilot Program was not to decide if the City should pursue a Volunteer Coordina-
tor/Management position, but that the City Council was committed to the posi-
tion, but needed additional information on how best to proceed and successful
models that would work. Reiterating his directive, Mr. Trudgeon, with Council
consensus, noted that the City Council wanted to proceed, but was not sure bow
best to approach it.
Regular City Council Meeting
Monday, October 28, 2013
Page 16
Councilinember Etten opined that, his concern with an intern, was that the person
would need to be actively managed, and questioned if that would take away any
benefit of staff savings; -or how that would help the City. Also, based on com-
ments of Councilmember McGehee, Councilor emher Etten questioned how a
sho-rt-term Intern would develop a relationship with volunteers, and provide
someone they could know, trust and with whom they could have a positive rela-
tionship. Councilmember E questioned if this wouldn't tic up more. staff re-
sources than savings realized with an 1ntem versus hiring a professional staff per-
son.
Whether or not mana 91 ing an Intern or a permanent staff position, Councilmember
Laliberte opined that there would be some management required with either; and
argued that an Intern pulling together the initial framework to move forward, us-
ing Parks for the Pilot Program would make sense and be a good direction to try.
15. City Manager Future Agenda Review
Intenhia City Manager Trudgeon provided a b6 review of upcoming agendas.
16. Councilmember Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Councilme rob er Willows referenced recent discussions at the Public Works, Environ-
ment, and Transportation Commission (PWETC) meeting and public comment related to
the County Road B pathway and possible funding available through Minnesota State, Aid
(MSA) funds. Councilmember Willmus soughs an update from staff at a November
meeting as to whether that was possible, and if so, whether the City Council should pro-
i
v de direction to the PWETC on how best to proceed and available funding sources.
Discussion ensued regarding MSA funding and tumback status of County Road B from
Ramsey County; as well as speed studies.
Councilmembers discussed a potentially earlier start for the Closed Executive Session
scheduled for November 18, 2013; possibly at 5:30 p.m.
Councilmembers clan'fied that, while public comment will be accepted on Novembei- 18,
the organized collection discussion was intended to only consist of a presentation on the
most recent legislationt and request from the PWFTC for the Oty Counc'Y's response to
their recommendation, made some -time ago and deferred to-date.
qASEN+L�hE
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Date: 12/02/2013
Item No.: 12. a
Department Approval City Manager Approval
Item Description: Consider Adopting a Final 2014 Tax Levy and Budget
BACKGROUND
Z State Statute requires all cities in excess of 2,500 in population, to adopt a final tax levy and budget by
3 December 30th for the upcoming fiscal year. The final levy amount must not exceed the preliminary
4 levy that was established in September. However, the Council has discretion in modifying the budget
r- at any time.
6
7 At the September 9, 2013 City Council meeting, the Council adopted a 2014 preliminary, not -to- exceed
s tax levy and budget. A summary is presented below.
9
2014 Recommended Budget
11 The 2014 City Manager Recommended Budget for the tax - supported programs is $23,008,060, an
12 increase of $1,223,258 or 5.6 %. The increase includes $560,000 for the remaining debt obligations
13 associated with the Parks Renewal Program. It also includes $225,000 in additional capital funding that
14 was made possible by an appropriation of Local Government Aid. The LGA has been earmarked for
1 � Information Technology ($75,000) and Building Replacement ($150,000) consistent with the
16 recommendations put forth by the previous CIP Subcommittee.
17
18 The remaining funding increase is needed to maintain current programs and services that residents have
19 come to expect. This operating budget increase amounts to a 2.0% increase which is comparable to the
20 rate of inflation expected by most economic forecasts. Highlights of the recommended operating
21 budget increases for the tax - supported programs include the following:
22
23 2014 Tax Levy Funded Increases
24
Description
Amount
Implement 3.26% Compensation market adjustment
$1571190
Implement add'1 market adjustment for selected employees
201000
Add a Park Maintenance Operator position
601000
Provide for additional Police overtime
101000
Provide for Police New American Forums materials
11000
Less Employee Wellness Program funding reduction
(20,000)
Suspend Merit Pay
(301000)
Unassigned
705
Total
$1989895
20
Page 1 of 4
26 * * Note, Merit Pay of $30,000 shown in the above table was temporarily suspended pending Council
27 approval of a new Merit Pay Plan Policy, but can be funded out of contingency funds set aside in the
2R annual General Fund budget.
29
3U 2014 Cash Reserve Funded Increases
31
Description
Amount
2% Employee cost -of- living adjustment
$ 1651000
Employee wage step increases
801000
Employee Healthcare
501000
PERA increase mandate
301000
Dispatching
651000
General Inflation
471000
Reduction from sales tax exemption
(40,000)
Reduced City Contribution to Fire Relief per actuarial study
(80,000)
Total
$3179000
32
33 The City Council has also expressed a desire to fund a new Volunteer Coordinator position. If the
34 Council decides to do this, we will need to make sure it is appropriated somewhere in the budget along
35 with a funding source — which could simply be the use of Cash Reserves for 2014. We could not
36 however increase the 2014 tax levy as it is already statutorily capped at the preliminary levy set back in
3, September.
38
39 The City Manager Recommended Budget for the non tax - supported programs as recently adjusted is
40 $27,627,165, an increase of $3,973,197 or 16.8 %. This is $55,000 less than the original Recommended
41 Budget for these programs which is no longer needed to implement the results from the Compensation
42 Study. The overall Budget increase is due to higher planned capital outlays ($1.5 million), tax
43 increment financing activities ($1.7 million), and added costs associated with the purchase of water
44 from the City of St. Paul and wastewater treatment charges from the Met Council.
45
46 It also includes additional funding to add two new positions in the Information Technology division
47 which are being funded primarily from other governmental agencies that have partnered with the City.
48
49 2014 Recommended Budget Funding Sources
50 In the General Fund, non -tax revenues are expected to remain stagnant overall for 2014. Increases in
51 business licenses, permit fees, and court fines will be offset by a decline in interest earnings. The Parks
52 & Recreation Fund is expected to fare slightly better with program fees increasing by approximately
53 $41,000. The additional program fees will offset higher parks and recreation - related employee and
54 other operating costs. As noted above, the City also expects to receive $225,000 in local government
55 aid which will be earmarked for capital replacements.
56
57 The Recommended Budget also relies on approximately $317,000 of General Fund cash reserves which
58 is less than the $430,000 figure referenced earlier in the budget process. The decline is somewhat due
59 to refined estimates of personnel- related costs that factors in recent employee turnover. It also includes
6o revised estimates of the amount of savings being derived from the newly- imposed sales tax exemption
U i and the extent it will offset inflationary effects on general operating costs.
62
63
Page 2 of 4
64
65
66
67
66
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
Tax Levy and Impact on Homeowners
A summary of the tax levy impact on homeowners based on the Recommended Budget is presented
below. In an effort to provide added insight not only on the 2014 Budget but also future budgets, a 7-
year projection of the tax levy is shown below. The 7 -year period coincides with the same period
referenced in the recommendations set for the by the City Council and CIP /Budget Committee.
Proposed Tax Levy & Estimated Impact
Levy Purpose
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Operations (a)
$ 12,543,826
$ 12,742,721 $
13,54003 $
13,946,203 $
14,364,589 $
14,795,526 $
15,239,392 $
1506,574
Capital (b)
1,58600
1,5861000
1,79600
2,1061000
226600
2,7611000
2,96100
3,611,000
Debt (c)
3114000
3,7001000
3148000
3,3301000
3133000
3,0551000
2199500
2,2301000
Total $
17,2691826 $ 1810281721 $
1818161003 $
1913821203 $
19,9601589 $
2016111526 $
2111951392 $
2115371574
$ Levy Increase
- $ 7589895 $
787282 $
5661200 $
578,386 $
6501938 $
583,866 $
3429182
% Levy Increase
- 4.4%
4.4%
3.0%
3.0%
3.3%
2.8%
1.6%
Monthly Impact (d) - $ 4.47 $ 3.26 $ 2.34 $ 2.39 $ 2.69 $ 2.41 $ 1.42
% Increase 7.3% 5.0% 3.4% 3.4% 3.7% 3.2% 1.8%
2014 Property Tax Impact:
•:� Under the 2014 Recommended Budget, the monthly impact on amedian- valued home
will be $4.47 per month. Only $0.83 of this amount is for day -to -day operations. The
remaining is for debt service.
•'• In total, a median valued home will pay approximately $65 per month in property
taxes. This is comparable to what that same home will pay independently for gas,
electric, mobile phone, and internet connectivity.
•'• This 7 -year tax levy projection demonstrates that the City is nearing a period of
stability that will allow for inflationary -type increases moving forward in order to
maintain current service levels. However, if the Council establishes new programs or
initiatives, additional taxes will be likely.
art POLICY OBJECTIVE
X11 Adopting a final budget and tax levy is required under Mn State Statutes.
01? FINANCIAL IMPACTS
3 See above.
9"# STAFF RECOMMENDATION
09; Staff Recommends the Council adopt the Final 2014 Tax Levy and Budget Levy as outlined in this
96 report and in the attached resolutions.
97 REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION
98 The Council is asked to take the following separate actions:
Page 3 of 4
99
100 a) Motion to consider approving the attached Resolution to adopt the 2014 Final Tax Levy
101 b) Motion to consider approving the attached Resolution to adopt the 2014 Final Debt Levy
102 c) Motion to consider approving the attached Resolution to adopt the 2014 Final Budget
BUJ
Prepared by: Chris Miller, Finance Director
Attachments: A: Resolution to adopt the 2014 Final Tax Levy
B: Resolution to adopt the 2014 Final Debt Levy
C: Resolution to adopt the 2014 Final Budget
104
Ub
Page 4 of 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Attachment A
EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota was duly held on the second day of December 2013 at
6:00 p.m.
The following members were present: and and the following were absent:
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION SUBMITTING THE FINAL PROPERTY TAX LEVY
ON REAL ESTATE TO THE RAMSEY COUNTY AUDITOR
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR OF 2014
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Roseville,
Minnesota, as follows:
The City of Roseville is submitting the following tax levy on real estate within the corporate
limits of the City to the County Auditor in compliance with the Minnesota State Statutes.
Purpose
Amount
Programs & Services
$ 14,328,721
Debt Service
3,700,000
Total
$ 18,028,721
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and
upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and , and the
following voted against the same:
WHEREUPON, said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Resolution - Property Tax Levy for Fiscal Year 2014
State of Minnesota)
SS
County of Ramsey)
I, undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager of the City of Roseville, County of
Ramsey, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and
foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of said City Council held on the second day of
December 2013 with the original thereof on file in my office.
WITNESS My HAND officially as such Manager this second day of December 2013.
Patrick Trudgeon
Interim City Manager
Seal
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Attachment B
EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota was duly held on the second day of December 2013 at
6:00 p.m.
The following members were present:
and the following were absent:
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE COUNTY AUDITOR TO
ADJUST THE APPROVED TAX LEVY FOR 2014 BONDED DEBT
WHEREAS, the City will be required to make debt service payments on General Obligation
Debt in 2014; and
WHEREAS, there are reserve funds sufficient to partially reduce the originally scheduled levy
for General Obligation Series 2009A, 2011 A, 2012A, and 2013A; and
WHEREAS, General Obligation Series 2008A requires a slightly higher amount; and
WHEREAS, General Obligation Series 2004 Refunding and 2009B Refunding will require
continued levy support to repay the internal loan used to retire the bonds early.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Roseville,
Minnesota, that
The Ramsey County Auditor is directed to change the 2014 tax levy for General Improvement
Debt by $85,330.67 from that which was originally scheduled upon the issuance of the bonds as
follows:
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
* * To repay internal loan used to pay off the bonds early
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
WHEREUPON, said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
and
Originally
Additions
Scheduled
or
Certified
Bond Issue
Lew Amount
Reductions
Debt Lew
GO Refunding 2009B * *
$ -
$ 1601000.00
$ 1601000.00
GO Refunding 2004 **
-
1501000.00
1501000.00
GO Equip Certs 2008A
3541690.00
310.00
3551000.00
GO Housing Imp 2009A
115,460.63
(115,460.63)
-
GO 201 IA
8371983.70
(21983.70)
8351000.00
GO 2012A
114031955.00
(28,955.00)
11375,000.00
GO 2013A refunding
9021580.00
(77,580.00)
8251000.00
Total
$ 3161409.33
$ 851330.67
$ 3,7001000.00
* * To repay internal loan used to pay off the bonds early
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
WHEREUPON, said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
and
Resolution — 2014 Bonded Debt
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
I, undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager of the City of Roseville, County of
Ramsey, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and
foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of said City Council held on the second day of
December, 2013, with the original thereof on file in my office.
WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this second day of December, 2013.
Patrick Trudgeon
Interim City Manager
Seal
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Attachment C
EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota was duly held on the second day of December 2013 at
6:00 p.m.
The following members were present:
and the following were absent:
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE FINAL 2014 ANNUAL BUDGET
FOR THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Roseville,
Minnesota, as follows:
The City of Roseville's Budget for 2014 in the amount of $50,635,225, of which $23,008,060 is
designated for the property tax - supported programs, be hereby accepted and approved
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and
upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
WHEREUPON, said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Resolution 2014 Annual Final Budget
State of Minnesota)
SS
County of Ramsey)
I, undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager of the City of Roseville, County of
Ramsey, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and
foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of said City Council held on the second day of
December 2013, with the original thereof on file in my office.
WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this second day of December 2013.
Patrick Trudgeon
Interim City Manager
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
qASEN+L�hE
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Department Approval
e,44 'e. /,nA
Item Description: Consider Adopting the 2014 Final HRA Tax Levy
Date: 12/02/13
Item No.: 12.d
City Manager Approval
BACKGROUND
State Statute requires all municipalities that have levy authority over other governmental agencies to
adopt a preliminary tax levy for that agency by September 15th for the upcoming fiscal year. The
Roseville HRA, while a separate legal entity, does not have direct levy authority. The City Council
must adopt a levy using its authority along with a designation that the funds go to the HRA.
On August 13, 2013, the HRA formally adopted a resolution calling for a 2014 Recommended Tax
Levy in the amount of $703,579, an increase of $5,108 or 0.7% over 2013. A copy of the resolution is
included in Attachment B.
The following table summarizes the estimated tax impact on residential homes, based on the HRA's
recommended 2014 tax levy, tax base estimates provided by Ramsey County, and assuming a 3.5%
increase in property valuation — the expected amount for a median valued home in Roseville.
Estimated Tax Impact — Median Valued Home with a 3.5% Valuation Increase
Value of 2012 2013 S Increase % Increase
Home Actual Estimated (decrease) (decrease)
$ 150,075
$ 26
$ 27
$ 1
2.9%
170,775
30
31
1
2.9%
194,994
34
35
1
2.9%
207,890
36
37
1
2.9%
226,789
39
41
1
2.9%
The amounts shown above are independent of the impact that results from the City's tax levy.
Page 1 of 2
2" POLICY OBJECTIVE
Z Adopting a final HRA tax levy is required under State Statutes in order to make it effective the
23 following year.
24 FINANCIAL IMPACTS
2� See above.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff Recommends the Council adopt or modify the attached resolution setting the 2014 Final HRA Tax
Levy.
"If REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION
Motion to adopt or modify the attached resolution establishing the 2014 Final HRA Tax Levy.
Prepared by: Chris Miller, Finance Director
Attachments: A: Resolution to adopt the 2014 Final HRA Tax Levy
B: Resolution adopted by the HRA requesting a 2014 Tax Levy
Page 2 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Attachment A
EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, was held on the second day of December, 2013, at
6:00 p.m.
The following members were present
and the following were absent:
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO
A RESOLUTION SUBMITTING THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, IN AND FOR THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE, SPECIAL PROPERTY TAX
LEVY ON REAL ESTATE TO THE RAMSEY COUNTY AUDITOR FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR OF 2014
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Roseville.
Minnesota, as follows:
The request of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, in and for the City of
Roseville, for a special levy per Minnesota Statues Section 469.033, is hereby authorized in the
amount of $703,579 to be collected in 2014 for the purposes of Minnesota Statutes Section
469.001 to 469.047.
The motion for the adoption of the forgoing resolution was duly seconded by Council
Member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor:
and the following voted against:
WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
HRA Tax Levy
State of Minnesota)
SS
County of Ramsey)
I, undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager of the City of Roseville, County of
Ramsey, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and
foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of said City Council held on the second day of
December 2013 with the original thereof on file in my office.
WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this second day of December 2013.
Patrick Trudgeon
Interim City Manager
Attachment
]EXTRACT T of MDUJTES of MIEE G of THE
HOUSING AND RE E'ELOPMEENT A THORITV
IN AND FOR THE CITY of ROSEVILLE
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the Housing and
e developmcnt Authority in and for the- City of RosevUle, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, was
d ly called and held at the City Hall on - Tuesday, the 13 "' day of August, 2013, at :00 p.m.
The following members were present* Quam, villnus, Blkins, Masch a, Lee, 1 lasche
and the following were absent: Maj eras
Comm is loner Quam introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption
Resolution No.
Resolution Adopting A 'Tax Levy In 2013 Collectible in 2014
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissionen the. "Board" of the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Roseville, Mbne of (the, "Authority"), as
follows;
Simon 1. Recitals.
1.01. The Authority is authorized by Minn ota Statutes Section 469.033 to
adopt a levy on all taxable property wi#hin its area of operation, which is
the City of Roseville, Minnesota (the `City''.
1.02. The Authority is authorized to use the mounts colleted by the ley for
the purposes of Minnesota Statutes Section 469.001 to 469.047 (the
"General Levy").
Section 2. Findi n
2.01. The Authority hereby finds that it is necessary and in the best interest of
the City and the Authority to adopt the General Levy to provide funds
necessary to accomplish the goals of the Authority and in furtherance of
its Housing Plan.
Section 3. Adoption of General Iv.
3.01. The following sums of money are hereby levied for the current year,
collectible in 2014, upon the taxable property of the City for the purposes
of the GenerW Levy described in Section 1.02 above;
Amount: $703,579
1193
Section 4, &eport to Cily and Filing of Levies.
4.01. The executive director of the Authority i
Certificate
ficatt
I, the undersigned, being duly appointed and acting Executive Director of the H u ng
and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Roseville, Minnesota, hereby certify that 1
have carefully compared the attached and foregoing resolution with the original thereof on file in
my office and further certify that the same is a full, true, and complete copy of a resolution which
was duly adopted by the Board of Commissioners of said Authority at a duly called and regularly
held meeting thxo f on August 13, 2013.
1 further certify that Commissioner Qua introduced said resolution and moved its adoption,
which motion was duly seconded by Commissioner Elkins, and that upon roll call vote berg
taken hereon, the following Commissioners voted in favor thereof:
Quam, Wil iu , ElIdns, Maschka, Lee, l ache
and the following voted against the same: Done
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Fitness my hid as the Executive Director of the Authority this I3't day of August,
2013.
9eautive Director
Housing and l cdcvelopm
Authority in and for the City
of Rosovifle, Minnesota
13 419 VI
City or Rosa llie Housing & R,cdmi dojnwnt Authority DRAFT
2014 Pro d Rud t Fund 723
ACCQ1Account
1YrrMber Description
723
..'.•1.. .. 'v , � �..i. •. /` •yp�•/■� /L ",f y,y '" :',.Ly� "ter }.5•Y.'d'••'":... .. ... o. -' C•�'. '.'
Y.i :•:.. •t "''i; - ''■ CLF VWk1.- LTV `1r GR . Y_
Cash - Carry over end of yeaT �•
Investment Income
fQ Ap Lviy q- Approved �}� �pp b City Council
Name $ en Fees
Miscellaneous Income
Tatsil Revenue
,
p � sR
YA y i
." 3 i$�
� -, ••�y...'' e,;. ..
i ? ' -V,c J -
$sue' . "
z �0
A C
2014
Proposed
Budget
RirF7 nun y��7y�■�y
" -$ 145,300.00
5.000.00
703}5'�9.Q0
J6,000.00
so
969,879.00
cCuunt
Number Description -
'723 a .
MM,
_. UK", .4
70 Home & Garden Fair �r „�•.,
430000 Professional Services - Design Service`
4330i}4 Advertisl
434000 PrintingV
438000 Rental
48000 MiscellaneousC Supplies X424000 s
430000 Professional Services - Online Registration
fit" ;'
;
�: ��� #
_
�:'� .:�. ""
Proposed
Budget
Expt
Home. & Ga>?tlea Farr
5,000.00
S
5,004.00
F. .. ;�.
7,709,00
gyp"
31,000.04
ti '- ::.:
300.00
70 Horse & Garden Fair
71 Housing Replacement Program
430000 Professional Services
434000 Printing
448040 Miscellaneous
490000 CCOMWor Payments
71 Housing Replacement gram
: ; ..: ;. ...:
x .f Jr
A�
72' Multi Fnxnil �. .
Program
430000 Professional Services
434000 Printing K-
448000 MismilanceuS
other Services & Charges
490000 Contractor Payments
•' • •• t
�; _;
-
i f•� Y S
72 Multi Family Pro ram Total
006
, 00
fti
73 Ownership Rehab Pro ram
430000 Professional Services- %RC''s
433000 Advertising
Other Seruica & Charges Fees for Loan Clos%n
40404 Greene Award Program ,;:; y •.:�
Energy Efficiency Pro ern
_
:a . ': :I]
13,000.00
-
..
¢.p• o. U
850.00
d:ti ' ��� `-•,��• �
�,
73 Ownership Rehab) Pro ram. TotaC °� o .: �
.:� .M :.a °.2
PE
74 First Time 13u er Program
430004 Professional Services
433000 -Advertising'' ";�
445400 Ctter Services & Cta s ( 448000 , 4 24 0 0
490000 LivdwaTk RSV pro&M ^ Y .
-_:• >, �,�:'3'< §>
-
, .. ZJ ", A.:
74 First Time Bayer Pro rain Totfll
-
78 Neighborhood Enhancement Pro raot
430000 Prof Services
433000 Marketing -Printing and Mailing
Other Services & Charges
y AD R ':
- 100400
78 Neighborhood Enhancement Pro ram Toni
"r '° 0t
"G }404,Q0
82 Mnrketing Studies
430000 Prof Services - Update Comprehensive Housi
Prof Services - Chanvtte for Date Street
433400 Ono n Marketin - Advertisin
City Communication Shared Position
434400 -Printing Marketing lwlaterialr` x°
448040 Miscellaneous-Postage
82 MarketiREStudics �..
t •,
- --
u N
1,50t}.00 "
30 ,2000.00'
x...
6 SOO&00 "
�.•r
1a0.Q0
sr;
0.00.
56 Economic Development . °
430040 Prof Services -BR&E survey/report
433400 Marketing - outreach to existinusinesses
ether Services & Charges
490004 New Programming based upon BR&E survey p=
= �"
' rj
10;Q0��0
-
10,000,00
"51~� -s;
AT � �;�
20 000.40
56 Economic Development Pru rom Total
00 General 1FRA Expenditures
430000 Frof. Svs. Staff, Secretary) Q
0006 Prof. Svs. Attorn
448001 Fisi~aIfoverhead Fee
441000 Educatifln (Trainin Corrferenres)
441040 Training/Conference farHoardmernbers
442000 Mbrshi Subscri ticns
448000 other Services & ChM 448000,424000,43%M
r - - •,'N' ice`
A
,.•: -k` y: >
162,028.65
9,721672
�°S' �r ° �` �
•• • " • - 2,000.00
ti
1 004.00
1,504.00
1. ;q
. 2,000.00
00 {mineral IFRA Expenditures OR .'
,: "
Iiili3,254.37:
13ud et Subtotal
DeservesY y.
Total kx ensrs
Over funt1w)
Reserve
Required 35% Casht4ovr shortfall reserve ;' ° ° '`"
� �.
806,640.37
63,278.63
�.
s ,R: E• 1, a
� �
E q:. •
' '' �'
`
869,879.40
3%457,65
14,309 .+ ,
[tarsi Cm flaw mm" ror alwrtra]Is
DRAFT
Attachment
Action
Responsible Now or
Timeline Budget implications '
Sources of Fur&
Outcome Financial Needs
1EXISting
AL Increase the use of H RA's financlal resources,
housing programs and HRC Center sarw[ces by
residents, property owners, and others.
* COnstFUCtlon Servl£es
HRC
Existing
Ongoing
Was $15,004
Levy
13.000
13,004
Rehab loans 13-5 a year)
HRC
Ongoing
Loan pool $554,flXM
Revolving ban
recehra hies $41155,WO
Home
• Loan closing cost fees
HRC
Upon loan closing
Improvernera
• General marketing
Staff
General overall marketing
Levy
10,500
2000
and operations
S. Continue to posltbn the HRA as a leader In
Staff
Existing
Ongoing
Staff time
providing education and information about
Partfci mtbn In NAHRO,
resources that support s ustaineble life styles.
5LUC, tltl and others
Q When marketing the City, hlghl4ht advantages
StafflConsultant
EWIng
Ongoing
$3010170
Levy
Shared resource with
30,0t]ti
30,00D
for tharWng demographics.
kdmin for new pos Mo n
14 Produce events such as the Liv ng smarter
Staff /partners
EAsting
Yearly
$21,060 -oust
Levy
Fees
71004
21ADD
Home and Garden Fair, workshops, and Create
$1k00D4ncome
partnership that encourage envTmnmental
stewwardshlp when creatrn6 acrd /or remodeling
housing stack and when develo phig
nefghbarhou ds.
L Crane programs and resources #hat help
NEC/Staff
ExNtTng
ongoing
$12.000 For Energy Audits
Levy
12AW
11,135+0
residents Incorporate healthy burlding ter hnr ues.
S850 Im Green Award
F. Expand the HFIA's presence In i ocial media and
Staff/Consultant
Existing
ongoing
Web-teased services.
S, Promote innondve housing developments to
Staff
New
Ongoing
Part of 2.
foster ne Ighisorhood -level places that maxrmlze the
Sense of community
.�ti.
Am
WL
Increase alternath+e housing options and flexible
De+mlo perl5taff
New
2012 -2016
Part of 7 d.
designs to support bath changing dernographla
Project spadfrc
a red io ng term uses.
EL Provide FlnantW resources to preserve and
ormaperlstaff
E:xrsting
Ongoing
Part of 2 d. and 2 e.
levy
State. County, Met
175.000
350,040
develop new housing in partnersh ip wfth no n- profit
Cc until, Federa i Reserve
earnmunity groups, prTga#esector deMopment
724.aaCt
partners, and federal, state, and reglontml agencies.
Q Create wafkablllty and pedestean eonnettiwty N
Coun£EE
aA redevelopment plans the HRA participates in.
Developer/Staff
New
Ongoing
Project s ifie
Funds
d. Provlde leadership in aasernbling sites avid /or
_Loupty
providing financial assistanMce for the development
of Intergenerational housing,
■ pale street5lation
staff
New
20124014
$6136,ti0Q less tests for
720}721 Pcif&[q.It
■ Good Samaritan
aeveloper/Staff
2013-2.015
taxes; dvur1rWmaintainfre
affordable Impslne
UlA knowwn
724 Balance +29 lsiidget
s owidso School
Staff
2014 -2016
16 Mlllion
Levy
724 Account
y Continue to provide resources that support
Staff
Existing
Ongoing
Part ur 2 b.
720/721 Stage, Cty &
affordable housing optJons In the carnmunity.
Met councrl
F identify preferred redevelopment sites and
StafF
New
1 per year
Part of 2 cL '
rncreaae partnership so that HRA has a
"development in the works° at a li.times.
Mo
2013 forward f xhtrng fund balance of
Revolving Loam Funds
AL I ncrease resourM to renovate, redevelop,
Staff
New
and /or undertake in 131 pro acts.
5553.965
s. Maintain and encourage a mix of housing WPes
staff
New
2 -3 Homes a year
$2W,400
Levy
200,000
Z00,f700
In each neighborhood by d1rectiw purchas erg
available propertfes for denwl Mon and supporting
new home construction.
- Reuoiving Loan Funds
Q, End Lire avalla hill rty of appropriate Fes oumes. to
HRC
ExrstTng w{
Ongoing :
Existing fund balance of
rehabllitate and upgrade existing ho using stock for
passible pro-
changing dernograpNcs.
gram change
: Ma-
Identify properties that are underutlli;ed,
Staff/Code Offklals
New ' ,.
L a year v
'CohdMilatW, ucensing,
Levy
deterforated! a hirghted and use available tools
� :.5hT" A
AegWglons
{such as tandem notion, licensing andl'or
Fegulatlunsl to rewitaliie or redeveto .
HIA. Conduit Debt
HiNs, Conduit Uebt
IL Utiltae funding tools such as HWs, Conduit Debt
Staff
Existing ." : v:
Ongoing review
Financing, and Dun ding #o be used to pro mote the
' "' ; �
cx°
Financln and Banding
Financing
Improvement of housing and redemlo mentvsites.
.
levy
N F P
!s Continue to provEde resources tp:maintSin
Stiff
E idsting
.6 rna: each year
29,730
26.001)
proactive code enforcement pd Rd" to preyent
Account 722 for abatement
Pe volvrng funds
nuisance properties f rom: heg.Wvel y Impacdng
surrcuri&ng propertieL...,'. .
Fee based program
Fee based
pL Contin ue to explori4 in pa nnemh rp with the
5taffXonsultarn
New
Start 2015
City, further regulation.(#uch of licensing) of rental
Code Offh6l'al ,.lxollce
annually
operated by Carnm Deu.
unts withrn the City ar4. develop a better
understa ndrng of the resources needed.
southeast Roseville
Levy
County and State Funds
F„ Identify at -risk n elghborhoods and create
Staff
New
start 2013
partnerships to strengthen them.
colmrWing
Neighborhood Integratfort
Engage the community In developfng objecOves Consultant/Staff New 2013
Planning process
levy
30,004
10XM
that articulate business -develop priorkles.
B. Support the creation of redevelopment plans fur
Staff/Planners/
Mesh
Ongoing
Review prev ous corridor
Met Council Planning
Neat and corridors that would benefit from
Consultant
plans for use and
Grants
reinvestment and rewl'Wization.
Im lernen #etbn
Discuss need
C� t76e Public- Private partnerships to encourage
Staff /i)evelcper logo
New
2014 ongoing
Loan program outcome
Levy
clean -up grants
20,Op0
reinvest rnen #, nwftalt:atror, and rede�veloprnent of
ners
from outreach process
once BR&E
retail office. and emplaymentdistricts,
report is
completed
Qt Create strong Fell Wnships with existing and
Staff/mayor/
New
Ongoing
Programs & Outreach
Levy
10 000
10,000
prospective bu losses to understand their needs
Consultant
and to mavdmim opportunities far business
retention growth, and development,
E. Develop programs for huslnesses that
Staff /HRC
New
2014
Levy
encourage pie to live w 1thTn the community.
F incenthvizeenviron mental stewardshipof
Staffliicel
New
2D13ongoing
Audltlresource
Levy
tommeFdal development.
program/loan program
gs Partner w/ City Council' to pro -vide financial
Staff
New
Ongoing
Meet with council quarterly
resources to facnita#e community aconomi r
to discuss 014ecthves.
development & redevelopment a actives.
pi
Ongoing
Increase in staff $5000a
Ritimit
Levy
154,313
lru'029
AL Review current BRA staff levels and provide any
CD4/Program
Exit sing
additional s uppor't needed to ensure
Ma n.lDept Assistant
$604+04
Implementation of the Strategic Plan.
Secretary
Increase fee to $15,000
15ADD
15ADO
L Explore and evaluate finandal resources
-Attorney
staff
New and
Ongoing
Stafftime
levy
Met Council Funds,
avalla hie to support the Implemertatic n of the
Existing
Excess TIF districts
strata I>c Plan.
C. Actively promote education, Srawtk and
Staff
f xistfng
Ongoing
3,225
4,500
advancement of stiff, board rnernbars, and
community members.
J?, Provide CtuarterlyPruBress Report to the HRA
Ongoing
Stafftime
board of aJI HRks funding snunxs. grant programs,
Staff
ExhtIng
and overall operations.
E. Conduct an annual regrew with the City Council
Staff /consultant
Existing
Yearly meetings
Update In 2016
levy
Other programs that
of the HRoVs strategic plan and budget. A new
with Council
qua iliy for action
strategic Pia n wW be developed everf four years.
L Seek & nurture partners hip w/ poiice & fire
staff
E&ting
Ongoing
Staff time. Some new
departments. neigh boring cities, Schaal districts,
programming will require
non - profits, a W consumers to Improve overall
additional staff time.
Aualfty of life In the City.
Subtatal
606471
794,878
Miscellaneous
10,737
11,722
Reserves for cash flow
+59807
63.279
166,3011
Income from Cash Carryover, Investment Income and H&G Fees
703,579
Total foaled
698471
I%
18
19
20
21
22
23
Department Approval
e,44 'e. /4-e4
qASEN+L�hE
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Date: 12/2/13
Item No.: 13.a
City Manager Approval
Item Description: Consider Adopting the 2014 Utility Rate Adjustments
BACKGROUND
Over the past several months, City Staff has been reviewing the City's utilities operations to determine
whether customer rate adjustments are necessary for 2014. The analysis included a review of the City's
water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, and curbside recycling operations. It also incorporates the
recommendations provided by the Council- appointed Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Task Force, and
the Public Works, Environment, and Transportation Commission (PWET).
Staff's analysis included a review of the following:
❖ Fixed costs including personnel, supplies and maintenance, and depreciation.
❖ Variable costs including the purchase of water from the City of St. Paul, water treatment costs
paid to the Metropolitan Council, and recycling contractor costs.
❖ Capital replacement costs.
❖ Customer counts and consumption patterns, rate structure, and rates.
A financial overview of each operating division is included beginning on the next page. The estimated
overall impact on a typical single- family home is shown in the following table.
Single Family Homes
Service
Water - base fee
Water - usage fee
Sanitary Sewer - base fee
Sanitary Sewer - usage fee
Storm Sewer
Recycling
Total per Quarter
2013
2014
$ Increase % Increase
49.50
54.45
4.95
38.70
39.60
0.90
37.35
37.35
-
21.75
24.00
2.25
11.15
11.70
0.55
6.00
5.00
(1.00)
$ 164.45
$ 172.10
$ 7.65 4.65%
Avg. Water consumption (1,000 gals.) 18
Avg. Sewer consumption (1,000 gals.) 15
As shown in the chart, for 2014 a typical single - family home will pay $172.10 per quarter, or $57.37
per month. This is an increase of $2.55 per month from 2013. Comparisons to peer communities are
shown in a separate section below.
Page 1 of 10
24 Water Operations
25 The City's water operation provides City customers with safe potable water, as well as on- demand
26 water pressure sufficient to meet the City's fire protection needs. The following table provides a
27 summary of the 2013 and 2014 (Proposed) Budget:
28
2
30
31
32 The single largest operating cost for the water operation is the purchase of wholesale water from the
33 City of St. Paul. For 2014, the budgeted amount has been increased to account for additional
34 consumption should the City experience a dry spring /summer.
35
36 The City of Roseville and St. Paul recently approved an amendment to the existing contract for water
37 service which allows St. Paul to charge both a fixed fee as well as usage charges. The original contract
38 anticipated this change and included the requirement that any rate structure revision could not
39 financially harm Roseville. In fact, Roseville stands to fare slightly better under the revision which
4o allowed Roseville's use rates to remain the same in 2013 as they were in 2012. An increase of 2.3%
41 is expected in 2014.
42
43 The City expects to have inflationary -type increases in supply and other costs, while capital costs are
44 expected to increase significantly due to planned capital replacements in accordance with the City's
45 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The water system portion of the CIP is fully funded with the
46 exception of inflationary type costs that have occurred during the past two years. This will require an
47 increase in the City's water base rates for 2014.
48
49 The Water Fund is in poor financial condition and does not currently have any cash reserves.
50 Sustained, yet moderate increases in the water rates will be necessary in future years to strengthen the
51 fund and provide for planned capital replacements.
52
53 There has been significant discussion during the past couple of years regarding the City's Water
54 Conservation Rates and the Senior Discount Program. These issues are addressed in greater detail in
55 the attached memos (Attachments B & C). The PWET Commission also weighed in on these specific
56 issues at their October meeting. Attachment D summarizes their recommendations.
57
Page 2 of 10
2013
2014
$ Incr.
(Decrease)
% Incr.
(Decrease)
Personnel
$ 595,845
$ 58300
Supplies & Materials
761325
78.350
Other Services & Charges
5841270
5861850
Water Purchases
510001000
511001000
Depreciation / Capital
115851000
218601000
Total
$ 7,841,440
$ 9,208,200
$113661760
17.4%
30
31
32 The single largest operating cost for the water operation is the purchase of wholesale water from the
33 City of St. Paul. For 2014, the budgeted amount has been increased to account for additional
34 consumption should the City experience a dry spring /summer.
35
36 The City of Roseville and St. Paul recently approved an amendment to the existing contract for water
37 service which allows St. Paul to charge both a fixed fee as well as usage charges. The original contract
38 anticipated this change and included the requirement that any rate structure revision could not
39 financially harm Roseville. In fact, Roseville stands to fare slightly better under the revision which
4o allowed Roseville's use rates to remain the same in 2013 as they were in 2012. An increase of 2.3%
41 is expected in 2014.
42
43 The City expects to have inflationary -type increases in supply and other costs, while capital costs are
44 expected to increase significantly due to planned capital replacements in accordance with the City's
45 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The water system portion of the CIP is fully funded with the
46 exception of inflationary type costs that have occurred during the past two years. This will require an
47 increase in the City's water base rates for 2014.
48
49 The Water Fund is in poor financial condition and does not currently have any cash reserves.
50 Sustained, yet moderate increases in the water rates will be necessary in future years to strengthen the
51 fund and provide for planned capital replacements.
52
53 There has been significant discussion during the past couple of years regarding the City's Water
54 Conservation Rates and the Senior Discount Program. These issues are addressed in greater detail in
55 the attached memos (Attachments B & C). The PWET Commission also weighed in on these specific
56 issues at their October meeting. Attachment D summarizes their recommendations.
57
Page 2 of 10
58 Sanitary Sewer Operations
59 The City maintains a sanitary sewer collection system to ensure the general public's health and general
so welfare. The following table provides a summary of the 2013 and 2014 (Proposed) Budget:
61
62
63
64
65 The single largest operating cost to the sanitary sewer operation is the wastewater treatment costs paid
66 to the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Division (MCES).
67
68 Based on projected flows and increased costs from the MCES, the budget for this category has been
69 increased by 2 %. Capital costs are also expected to increase significantly due to planned capital
7o replacements in accordance with the City's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The sanitary sewer
71 system portion of the CIP is fully. An increase in the City's sanitary sewer usa e rates will be needed
72 in 2014, however this will be somewhat offset by keeping the base fee unchanged.
73
74 The Sanitary Sewer Fund is in good financial condition and has a current cash reserve of $1,476,000; a
75 significant portion of which is earmarked for future capital replacements over the next 5 -10 years.
76
77 Storm Drainage Operations
78 The City provides for the management of storm water drainage to prevent flooding and pollution
79 control, as well as street sweeping and the leaf pickup program. The following table provides a
80 summary of the 2013 and 2014 (Proposed) Budget:
81
82
2013
2014
$ Incr.
(Decrease)
% Incr.
(Decrease)
Personnel
$ 367,235
$ 422,000
Supplies & Materials
461395
471350
Other Services & Charges
4201545
4231850
Wastewater Treatment
310001000
310601000
Depreciation / Capital
112801000
118081000
Total
$ 21301,915
$ 11998,200
$ (33,715)
(1.7)
Total
$ 51114,175
$ 5,761,200
$ 647,025
12.7
63
64
65 The single largest operating cost to the sanitary sewer operation is the wastewater treatment costs paid
66 to the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Division (MCES).
67
68 Based on projected flows and increased costs from the MCES, the budget for this category has been
69 increased by 2 %. Capital costs are also expected to increase significantly due to planned capital
7o replacements in accordance with the City's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The sanitary sewer
71 system portion of the CIP is fully. An increase in the City's sanitary sewer usa e rates will be needed
72 in 2014, however this will be somewhat offset by keeping the base fee unchanged.
73
74 The Sanitary Sewer Fund is in good financial condition and has a current cash reserve of $1,476,000; a
75 significant portion of which is earmarked for future capital replacements over the next 5 -10 years.
76
77 Storm Drainage Operations
78 The City provides for the management of storm water drainage to prevent flooding and pollution
79 control, as well as street sweeping and the leaf pickup program. The following table provides a
80 summary of the 2013 and 2014 (Proposed) Budget:
81
82
83
84
as The City expects to have inflationary -type increases in most operating costs overall. An increase in
ss personnel costs is mostly due to the hiring of a new environmental specialist position. Capital costs are
87 expected to decline slightly in accordance with the City's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The storm
ss water system portion of the CIP is fully funded with the exception of inflationary type costs that have
as occurred during the past two years. This will require an increase in the City's storm water rates for
so 2014.
Page 3 of 10
2013
2014
$ Incr.
(Decrease)
% Incr.
(Decrease)
Personnel
$ 3241615
$ 363,200
Supplies & Materials
571300
791100
Other Services & Charges
2811000
2591900
Depreciation / Capital
1,369,000
112961000
Total
$ 21301,915
$ 11998,200
$ (33,715)
(1.7)
83
84
as The City expects to have inflationary -type increases in most operating costs overall. An increase in
ss personnel costs is mostly due to the hiring of a new environmental specialist position. Capital costs are
87 expected to decline slightly in accordance with the City's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The storm
ss water system portion of the CIP is fully funded with the exception of inflationary type costs that have
as occurred during the past two years. This will require an increase in the City's storm water rates for
so 2014.
Page 3 of 10
91
92
93
94
95
96
91
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
The Storm Drainage Fund is in excellent financial condition and has a current cash reserve of
$2,974,000; a significant portion of which is earmarked for future capital replacements over the next 5-
10 years.
Recycling Operations
The recycling operation provides for the contracted curbside recycling pickup throughout the City and
related administrative costs. The primary operating cost is the amounts paid to a contractor to pickup
recycling materials.
The following table provides a summary of the 2013 and 2014 (Proposed) Budget:
The City recently negotiated a new 3-year contract that goes into effect in 2014. The contract is
approximately $100,000 less than the amount shown in the budgeted amount above. However, it has
not yet been signed and therefore remains unchanged in the budget. The reduced amount is reflected in
the rates charged to homeowners shown below.
Under the new contract, the City expects to receive as much as $140,000 in revenue sharing in 2014
along with a $65,000 SCORE grant from Ramsey County. These factors will allow the City to lower its
curbside recycling rates.
The Recycling Fund is in excellent financial condition and is in a good position to absorb potential
reductions in revenue sharing projections. The Fund has a current cash reserve of $264,000 or 50% of
the current operating budget.
Rate Impacts for 2014
As noted above, a typical single - family home will pay $172.10 per quarter, or $57.37 per month. This
is an increase of $2.55 per month from 2013. The following tables provide a more detailed breakdown
of the proposed rates.
Page 4 of 10
2013
2014
$ Incr.
(Decrease)
% Incr.
(Decrease)
Personnel
$ 32,375
$ 36,500
Supplies & Materials
405
600
Other Services & Charges
241910
301410
Contract Pickup
4741005
5251000
Total
$ 531,695
$ 592,410
$ 60,715
11.4%
The City recently negotiated a new 3-year contract that goes into effect in 2014. The contract is
approximately $100,000 less than the amount shown in the budgeted amount above. However, it has
not yet been signed and therefore remains unchanged in the budget. The reduced amount is reflected in
the rates charged to homeowners shown below.
Under the new contract, the City expects to receive as much as $140,000 in revenue sharing in 2014
along with a $65,000 SCORE grant from Ramsey County. These factors will allow the City to lower its
curbside recycling rates.
The Recycling Fund is in excellent financial condition and is in a good position to absorb potential
reductions in revenue sharing projections. The Fund has a current cash reserve of $264,000 or 50% of
the current operating budget.
Rate Impacts for 2014
As noted above, a typical single - family home will pay $172.10 per quarter, or $57.37 per month. This
is an increase of $2.55 per month from 2013. The following tables provide a more detailed breakdown
of the proposed rates.
Page 4 of 10
126
127
128
129
130
131
Water Base Rate Category
Single- Family Residential
Single- Family Residential: Senior Discount
Non -SF Residential (5/8 "Meter)
Non -SF Residential (1.0 "Meter)
Non -SF Residential (1.5 "Meter)
Non -SF Residential (2.0 "Meter)
Non -SF Residential (3.0 "Meter)
Non -SF Residential (4.0 "Meter)
Non -SF Residential (6.0 "Meter)
Water Usage Rate Category
SF Residential: Up to 30,000 gals. /qtr
SF Residential: Over 30,000 gals. /qtr (winter rate)
SF Residential: Over 30,000 gals. /qtr (summer rate)
Non -SF Residential (winter rate)
Non -SF Residential (summer rate)
Rates are per 1,000 gallons
Sewer Base Rate Category
Single - Family Residential
Single - Family Residential: Senior Discount
Multi - Family Residential (townhomes)
Multi - Family Residential (apartments & condos)
Non -SF Residential (5/8" Meter)
Non -SF Residential (1.0" Meter)
Non -SF Residential (1.5" Meter)
Non -SF Residential (2.0" Meter)
Non -SF Residential (3.0" Meter)
Non -SF Residential (4.0" Meter)
Non -SF Residential (6.0" Meter)
Multi - family rate is per housing unit
Sewer Usage Rate Category
Residential
Non - Residential
Rates are per 1,000 gallons
2013 2014
Rate Rate Comments
$ 49.50 $ 54.45 Standard SF rate
32.15
3 5.4 0
Standard SF rate x 0.65
49.45
54.45
Standard SF rate
62.40
68.65
Standard SF rate x 1.25
98.00
107.80
Standard SF rate x 2.00
187.10
205.80
Standard SF rate x 3.75
374.20
411.60
Standard SF rate x 7.50
748.45
11496.90
823.30
11646.60
Standard SF rate x 15.00
Standard SF rate x 30.00
2013
2014
Rate
Rate
Comments
$ 2.15
$ 2.20
Standard SF rate
2.40
2.45
Standard SF rate +10%
2.65
2.70
Standard SF rate +20%
2.80
2.90
Standard SF rate +30%
3.10
3.20
Standard SF rate +40%
2013
2014
R=
R=
Comments
$ 3 7.3 5
$ 3 7.3 5
Standard SF rate
23.30
23.30
Standard SF rate x 0.65
3 7.3 5
3 7.3 5
Standard SF rate x 1.00
25.75
25.75
Standard SF rate x 0.70
27.30
27.30
Standard SF rate x 0.75
54.65
54.65
Standard SF rate x 1.50
81.60
81.60
Standard SF rate x 2.25
136.10
136.10
Standard SF rate x 3.50
272.50
272.50
Standard SF rate x 7.25
545.20
545.20
Standard SF rate x 14.50
11090.30
11090.30
Standard SF rate x 29.00
2013 2014
Rate Rate Comments
$ 1.45 $ 1.60 Standard rate
3.35 3.70 Standard rate x 2.3 0
Page 5 of 10
132
133
134
135
136
Rates for single - family are per housing unit; all others are per acre
2013 2014
Recycling Rate Category Rate Rate
Single- Family $ 6.00 $ 5.00
Multi - Family 6.00 5.00
Comments
Standard SF rate _
Standard SF rate x 7.75
Standard SF rate x 0.75
Standard SF rate x 2.3 5
Standard SF rate x 3.75
Standard SF rate x 15.50
Comments in
Standard rate
Standard rate
Page 6of10
2013
2014
Stormwater Base Rate Category
Rate
Rate
Single- Family Residential & Duplex
$ 11.15
$ 11.70
Multi - Family & Churches
86.20
90.50
Cemeteries & Golf Course
8.65
9.10
Parks
25.90
27.20
Schools & Community Centers
43.15
45.30
Commercial & Industrial
172.45
181.10
Rates for single - family are per housing unit; all others are per acre
2013 2014
Recycling Rate Category Rate Rate
Single- Family $ 6.00 $ 5.00
Multi - Family 6.00 5.00
Comments
Standard SF rate _
Standard SF rate x 7.75
Standard SF rate x 0.75
Standard SF rate x 2.3 5
Standard SF rate x 3.75
Standard SF rate x 15.50
Comments in
Standard rate
Standard rate
Page 6of10
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
Rate Comparisons
The charts below depict a number of water and sewer rate comparisons with other peer communities.
For this analysis, peer communities include 1 st ring suburbs that serve a population between 18,000 and
50,000, and which are not simply an extension of a larger entity's system. This group was selected to
try and approximate cities with stand -alone systems with similar age of infrastructure which can have a
significant influence on the cost of water and sewer services.
It should be noted that broad comparisons only give a cursory look at how one community compares to
another. One must also incorporate each City's individual philosophy in funding programs and
services.
For example, Roseville does NOT utilize assessments to pay for water or sewer infrastructure
replacements like many other cities do. Instead we fund infrastructure replacements 100% through the
rates. As a result, Roseville's water and sewer rates are inherently higher when compared to a City that
uses assessments to pay for improvements. Other influences on the rates include whether or not a
community softens its water before sending it on to customers, and the extent in which communities
charge higher rates to non - residential customers.
The following chart depicts the peer group comparison for combined water base rate and usage rate for
a single- family home that uses 18,000 gallons per quarter.
2013 Water Charge Comparison
� $so -
� $60 -
�
$40 —
�
G
L
As is shown in the chart, Roseville's total water charge is the highest in the comparison group. Again,
there are numerous circumstances and policy preferences that can lead to varying rates among cities.
One of the primary reasons why Roseville's water rates are higher is due to the significant increase in
infrastructure replacements, which unlike many other cities are funded solely by the rates.
The following chart depicts the peer group comparison for combined sewer base rate and usage rate for
a single- family home that uses 15,000 gallons per quarter.
Page 7of10
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
171
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
$120
$100
$80
$ 60
$40
G
2013 Sewer Charge Comparison
�o
Ae
In this instance, Roseville sewer charges were less than the median. To get a broader perspective, the
following chart depicts the combined water and sewer impact for a typical single- family home for the
comparison group.
2013 Water &Sewer Charge Comparison
� $200
� $iso
$160
$140
� $120
$100
$ 80 —�
G
When combined, Roseville is approximately 17% above the average for the peer group. However, it
should be noted that most of the cities shown in the chart that have lower utility rates, happen to have
much higher property tax rates. This is an important distinction because again, each City employs a
different philosophy in how it funds the direct and indirect costs of providing services.
Roseville's philosophy is to ensure that all indirect costs are reflected in the water and sewer rates. This
results in higher water and sewer rates. This also means that we don't have as much indirect costs
being supported by the property tax or assessments.
This can be somewhat reflected in the chart below which combines property taxes and water and sewer
charges for a typical single- family home.
Page 8of10
188
2013 Taxes + Water & Sewer Comparison
N 1800
N
$1,600
$1,400
$1,200
N �
$1,000
�• o�'' off' ��° o�
189
190
191 As is shown in this chart, when looking at more comprehensive comparison that factors in a broader
192 spectrum of needs and funding philosophies, Roseville has one of the lowest financial impacts on
193 residents of the comparison group — nearly 15% below the peer average. Once again, we must also
194 look at other factors and local preferences to determine whether there are other influences affecting
195 property taxes and rates.
196
197 Staff will be available at the Council meeting to address any inquiries.
198
199 POLICY OBJECTIVE
2oo An annual review of the City's utility rate structure is consistent with governmental best practices to
201 ensure that each utility operation is financially sound. In addition, a conservation -based rate structure is
202 consistent with the goals and strategies identified in the Imagine Roseville 2025 initiative.
203 FINANCIAL IMPACTS
204 See above.
?nr, STAFF RECOMMENDATION
206 Based on the increasing costs noted herein, and recommendations from the Public Works, Environment,
207 and Transportation Commission; Staff is recommending rate adjustments as shown in the attached
208 resolution.
209 REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION
210 For discussion purposes only. The Council will be asked to adopt the attached resolution establishing
211 the 2014 Utility Rates at a subsequent Council meeting.
212
Prepared by: Chris Miller, Finance Director
Attachments: A: Resolution establishing the 2014 Utility Rates
B: Memo on the City's Water Conservation Rates
C: Memo on the City's Utility Discount (Senior Discount) Program
D: Memo summarizing the Recommendations from the Public Works, Environment, and Transportation
Commission.
213
Page 9of10
Page 10 of 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
16
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Attachment A
EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Roseville,
County of Ramsey, Minnesota was duly held on the second day of December 2013 at 6:00 p.m.
The following members were present:
and the following were absent:
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE 2014 UTILITY RATES
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Roseville, Minnesota, the
water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, and recycling rates are established for 2014 as follows:
Rates are per 1,000 gallons
2013
2014
Water Base Rate Category
Rate
Rate
Comments
Single- Family Residential
$ 49.50
$ 54.45
Standard SF rate
Single- Family Residential: Senior Discount
32.15
35.40
Standard SF rate x 0.65
Non -SF Residential (5/8 "Meter)
49.45
54.45
Standard SF rate
Non -SF Residential (1.0 "Meter)
62.40
68.65
Standard SF rate x 1.25
Non -SF Residential (1.5 "Meter)
98.00
1 07.80
Standard SF rate x 2.00
Non -SF Residential (2.0 "Meter)
187.10
205.80
Standard SF rate x 3.75
Non -SF Residential (3.0 "Meter)
374.20
411.60
Standard SF rate x 7.50
Non -SF Residential (4.0 "Meter)
748.45
823.30
Standard SF rate x 15.00
Non -SF Residential (6.0 "Meter)
11496.90
11646.60
Standard SF rate x 30.00
2013
2014
Water Usage Rate Category
Rate
Rate
Comments
SF Residential: Up to 30,000 gals. /qtr
$ 2.15
$ 2.20
Standard SF rate
SF Residential: Over 30,000 gals. /qtr (winter rate)
2.40
2.45
Standard SF rate +10%
SF Residential: Over 30,000 gals. /qtr (summer rate)
2.65
2.70
Standard SF rate +20%
Non -SF Residential (winter rate)
2.80
2.90
Standard SF rate +30%
Non -SF Residential (summer rate)
3.10
3.20
Standard SF rate +40%
Rates are per 1,000 gallons
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Multi - family rate is per housing unit
2013 2014
Sewer Usage Rate Category Rate Rate Comments
Residential $ 1.45 $ 1.60 Standard rate
Non - Residential 3.35 3.70 Standard rate x 2.30
Rates are per 1,000 gallons
2013
Stormwater Base Rate Category Rate
Single- Family Residential & Duplex $ 11.15
Multi - Family & Churches 86.20
Cemeteries & Golf Course 8.65
Parks 25.90
Schools & Community Centers 43.15
Commercial & Industrial 172.45
Rates for single - family are per housing unit; all others are per acre
2013
Recycling Rate Category Rate
Single- Family $ 6.00
Multi - Family 6.00
2013
Meter Security Deposit Rate
5/8 "Meter $ 175.00
3/4" Meter 200.00
1.0" Meter 255.00
1.5 "Meter 410.00
2.0" Meter (Disc) 500.00
2.0" Meter (Compound) 11260.00
3.0" Meter 11800.00
6.0" Meter 5,43 0.00
2014
Rate
$ 11.70
90.50
9.10
27.20
45.30
181.10
2014.4
Rate Md
$ 5.00
5.00
2014
Rate
$ 190.00
215.00
240.00
440.00
535.00
1,340.00
1,910.00
5,430.00
Comments
Standard SF rate
Standard SF rate x 7.75
Standard SF rate x 0.75
Standard SF rate x 2.3 5
Standard SF rate x 3.75
Standard SF rate x 15.50
Comments I$
Standard rate
Standard rate
Comments
Based on approx. meter cost
Based on approx. meter cost
Based on approx. meter cost
Based on approx. meter cost
Based on approx. meter cost
Based on approx. meter cost
Based on approx. meter cost
Based on approx. meter cost
2013
2014
Sewer Base Rate Category
Rate
Rate Comments
Single- Family Residential
$ 3 7.3 5
$ 3 7.3 5
Standard SF rate
Single - Family Residential: Senior Discount
23.30
23.30
Standard SF rate x 0.65
Multi - Family Residential (townhomes)
3 7.3 5
3 7.3 5
Standard SF rate x 1.00
Multi - Family Residential (apartments & condos)
25.75
25.75
Standard SF rate x 0.70
Non -SF Residential (5/8" Meter)
27.30
27.30
Standard SF rate x 0.75
Non -SF Residential (1.0" Meter)
54.65
54.65
Standard SF rate x 1.50
Non -SF Residential (1.5" Meter)
81.60
81.60
Standard SF rate x 2.25
Non -SF Residential (2.0" Meter)
136.10
136.10
Standard SF rate x 3.50
Non -SF Residential (3.0" Meter)
272.50
272.50
Standard SF rate x 7.25
Non -SF Residential (4.0" Meter)
545.20
545.20
Standard SF rate x 14.50
Non -SF Residential (6.0" Meter)
11090.30
11090.30
Standard SF rate x 29.00
Multi - family rate is per housing unit
2013 2014
Sewer Usage Rate Category Rate Rate Comments
Residential $ 1.45 $ 1.60 Standard rate
Non - Residential 3.35 3.70 Standard rate x 2.30
Rates are per 1,000 gallons
2013
Stormwater Base Rate Category Rate
Single- Family Residential & Duplex $ 11.15
Multi - Family & Churches 86.20
Cemeteries & Golf Course 8.65
Parks 25.90
Schools & Community Centers 43.15
Commercial & Industrial 172.45
Rates for single - family are per housing unit; all others are per acre
2013
Recycling Rate Category Rate
Single- Family $ 6.00
Multi - Family 6.00
2013
Meter Security Deposit Rate
5/8 "Meter $ 175.00
3/4" Meter 200.00
1.0" Meter 255.00
1.5 "Meter 410.00
2.0" Meter (Disc) 500.00
2.0" Meter (Compound) 11260.00
3.0" Meter 11800.00
6.0" Meter 5,43 0.00
2014
Rate
$ 11.70
90.50
9.10
27.20
45.30
181.10
2014.4
Rate Md
$ 5.00
5.00
2014
Rate
$ 190.00
215.00
240.00
440.00
535.00
1,340.00
1,910.00
5,430.00
Comments
Standard SF rate
Standard SF rate x 7.75
Standard SF rate x 0.75
Standard SF rate x 2.3 5
Standard SF rate x 3.75
Standard SF rate x 15.50
Comments I$
Standard rate
Standard rate
Comments
Based on approx. meter cost
Based on approx. meter cost
Based on approx. meter cost
Based on approx. meter cost
Based on approx. meter cost
Based on approx. meter cost
Based on approx. meter cost
Based on approx. meter cost
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
WHEREUPON, said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
State of Minnesota)
SS
County of Ramsey)
I, undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, State
of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of
minutes of a regular meeting of said City Council held on the second day of December 2013 with the
original thereof on file in my office.
WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this second day of December 2013.
Patrick Trudgeon
Interim City Manager
Seal
Attachment B
4 "Ir.
&fr# 0 - T T-1
I sks H_J Vq hi _J I J
Memo
To:
Roseville City Council
From:
Chris Miller, Finance Director
Date:
November 18, 2013
Re:
Water Conservation Rates
Background
In January, 2009 the City instituted a new water conservation -based rate structure designed to
encourage water conservation in conjunction with the goals and strategies outlined in the City's
Imagine Roseville 2025 initiative, as well as a new State Law that required water service
providers to encourage water conservation through education, awareness, and a conservation -
based rate structure.
The conservation rates primarily applied to single - family homes given that the water usage in
multi - family or commercial properties was too varied to apply a uniform policy. In response, the
City created a 2- tiered rate structure that was designed to target excessive water usage as
opposed to the water used for everyday household needs.
The first tier carried the standard usage rate which is set at the amount necessary to pay for the
purchase of water from the City of St. Paul. This tier applied to all household water usage up to
30,000 gallons per quarter. The second tier was set at a higher rate that would not only provide
sufficient monies to pay for the water used, but also provide a financial incentive or penalty for
all water used in excess of 30,000 gallons per quarter.
The 30,000 gallons threshold was selected because it is not unusual to see a 4 or 5 person
household use 30,000 gallons or more per quarter for general use such as personal hygiene,
washing clothes and dishes, cooking, etc. The rate structure was designed to encourage
conservation without unduly penalizing larger households for `normal' water use.
The current water rate structure is as follows:
Water Usage Rate Category
SF Residential: Up to 30,000 gals. /qtr
SF Residential: Over 30,000 gals. /qtr (winter rate)
SF Residential: Over 30,000 gals. /qtr (summer rate)
Non -SF Residential (winter rate)
Non -SF Residential (summer rate)
Rates are per 1,000 gallons
2013
2014
% of SF Homes:
Summer
Rate
Rate
Comments
$ 2.15
$ 2.20
Standard SF rate
2.40
2.45
Standard SF rate +10%
2.65
2.70
Standard SF rate +20%
2.80
2.90
Standard SF rate +3 0 %
3.10
3.20
Standard SF rate +40%
The current structure encourages both year -round conservation measures as well as a heightened
incentive for both residential and non - residential properties to monitor water used for irrigation
purposes.
The following chart depicts the percentage of single - family (SF) homes that fall into the current
water rate categories.
Water Rate Tier
% of SF Homes:
Winter
% of SF Homes:
Summer
0 — 30,000 gallons per quarter
90%
85%
Over 30,000 per quarter
10%
15
Total
100%
100%
As this table indicates, under the current water rate structure, 10 -15% (950 - 1,400) of single -
family homes are impacted by the higher rates. If we lowered the threshold for Tier 2 to 20,000
gallons per quarter, approximately 20-30% of single - family homes would be impacted; or double
the current amount.
It has been suggested that the current rate structure doesn't do enough to encourage water
conservation. It could be argued however, that before such a conclusion is drawn there ought to
be some amount of discussion and analysis to determine; 1) what amount of household usage is
reasonable, and 2) whether Roseville residents are adhering to that standard.
It could further be argued that education and awareness could prove to be equally effective in
promoting water conservation as would a financial incentive or penalty. Especially if that
incentive is a moderate one compared to what a household is already paying. In either case, it is
very difficult to establish a clear cause - effect relationship of these efforts given the variation in
household occupants and other factors such as rainfall amounts.
I'll conclude by returning to the cautionary statement noted above regarding the potential
unfairness that tiered water rates can have on larger families. Although our current usage
threshold for reaching the 2nd rate tier is at 30,000 gallons per quarter, let's use 15,000 gallons
for illustrative purposes.
Let's assume that the per - person water usage for someone that follows moderate water
conservation measures is 5,000 gallons per quarter. A 3- person household would use 15,000
gallons per quarter and would not hit the higher tier. However, a 4- person household would use
20,000 gallons per quarter and hit the higher tier simply because there are more people living in
the house. On an individual basis the 4- person household is just as conservative in their water
use, but they pay a higher rate nonetheless.
Taking this example further, let's assume that the 4- person household is even more conservative
and uses only 4,500 gallons per quarter, per person. This amounts to 18,000 gallons per quarter
which once again triggers the higher tier rate. In this example, the 4- person household pays a
higher rate despite having superior conservation behaviors compared to the smaller household.
This example underscores the policy challenge of instituting a water conservation rate structure
that is effective without punishing those that are already exhibiting the behavior you're trying to
foster.
Attachment C
4 "Ir.
&fr# 0 - T T-1
I sks H_j Vq hi _j I j
Memo
To: Roseville City Council
From: Chris Miller, Finance Director
Date: November 18, 2013
Re: Utility Bill Senior Discount Program
Background
The City's Utility Bill Discount Program (or a variation thereof) is believed to have been in
existence since at least 1970 when the City passed Ordinance #620. This ordinance is believed
to have been created as a means of encouraging homeowners to abandon their private wells and
septic systems in favor of connecting to the municipal system.
It is presumed that at the time the cost of connecting to the municipal system would have been
cost - prohibitive for many homeowners that were on a fixed or limited income. It is also
presumed that City Officials determined that most of the homeowners in that economic category
were most likely to be retired seniors.
Beginning January 1, 2004 the City Council expanded the `Senior Discount' Program to include
single - family homeowners that are at or below federal poverty guidelines. Under the current
Program single - family homeowners must meet the following eligibility requirements:
Utility Billing Discount Program Requirements
❖ Owner and head of the household of a single - family home
In addition, homeowners must meet one of the following requirements:
❖ At or below the federal poverty threshold guidelines
- -- OR - --
❖ Presently receiving retirement, survivors insurance, or disability insurance
under the Social Security Act, 42 USC #301, as amended.
Currently, 25% of all single - family homeowners are getting the discount — an increase of 400
households in the past 5 years. The discount applies on the water and sewer base fees only. The
household discount amount is $31.40 per quarter, or $125.60 annually. This is shown in the
chart below:
The total citywide value of the discounts is approximately $290,000 annually. This represents
the amount of water and sewer charges that are shifted from households that get the discount to
those that don't.
To put this in a different context, if the senior discount program was eliminated, the standard fee
would be reduced as follows:
Standard
Amount
Discount
Amount
Difference
% Diff.
Water Base Fee (per quarter)
$ 49.50
$ 32.15
$ (17.35)
Sanitary Sewer Base Fee (qtr.)
37.35
23.30
(14.05)
Total
$ 86.85
$ 55.45
$ (31.40)
-36%
The total citywide value of the discounts is approximately $290,000 annually. This represents
the amount of water and sewer charges that are shifted from households that get the discount to
those that don't.
To put this in a different context, if the senior discount program was eliminated, the standard fee
would be reduced as follows:
Discussion Issues
In evaluating the relevance of any existing public assistance program, it's important to reflect
upon why the program was created in the first place and whether those objectives have been met.
In this particular case, the Program was created to achieve a specific outcome — to encourage
homeowners to connect to the municipal system. Clearly this primary objective was achieved
long ago.
This raises the question as to what the Program's current objectives are. Intuitively one could
surmise that one of the remaining objectives is to provide assistance to those that have limited
financial means. However, the Program does not feature any means testing. Recipients merely
have to sign an affidavit signifying that they're drawing social security or are at or below federal
poverty guidelines. Currently, only a handful of homeowners are receiving the discount because
they are below the federal poverty guidelines.
This discussion has taken place at the Council level on several occasions in the past decade.
Each time, the Council has taken no action. Given the significant financial shift that is
occurring, the Council is advised to carefully consider whether the Program's objectives are still
relevant. That consideration should be made with the understanding that the number of
recipients in the Program is expected to steadily expand over the next 10 years under current
eligibility criteria.
This expansion will make it financially advantageous for older homeowners, while
simultaneously making it financially more difficult for younger ones.
Standard
Amount
Revised
Amount
Difference
% Diff.
Water Base Fee (per quarter)
$ 49.50
$ 45.50
$ (4.00)
Sanitary Sewer Base Fee (qtr.)
37.35
34.20
(3.15)
Total
$ 86.85
$ 79.70
$ (7.15)
-8%
Discussion Issues
In evaluating the relevance of any existing public assistance program, it's important to reflect
upon why the program was created in the first place and whether those objectives have been met.
In this particular case, the Program was created to achieve a specific outcome — to encourage
homeowners to connect to the municipal system. Clearly this primary objective was achieved
long ago.
This raises the question as to what the Program's current objectives are. Intuitively one could
surmise that one of the remaining objectives is to provide assistance to those that have limited
financial means. However, the Program does not feature any means testing. Recipients merely
have to sign an affidavit signifying that they're drawing social security or are at or below federal
poverty guidelines. Currently, only a handful of homeowners are receiving the discount because
they are below the federal poverty guidelines.
This discussion has taken place at the Council level on several occasions in the past decade.
Each time, the Council has taken no action. Given the significant financial shift that is
occurring, the Council is advised to carefully consider whether the Program's objectives are still
relevant. That consideration should be made with the understanding that the number of
recipients in the Program is expected to steadily expand over the next 10 years under current
eligibility criteria.
This expansion will make it financially advantageous for older homeowners, while
simultaneously making it financially more difficult for younger ones.
Attachment D
4 "Ir.
&fr# 0 - T T-1
I sks H_j Vq hi _j I j
Memo
To: Roseville City Council
From: Chris Miller, Finance Director
Date: November 18, 2013
Re: Recommendations from the Public Works, Environment, and Transportation Commission
Background
At their October 22, 2013 meeting, the Public Works, Environment, and Transportation
Commission reviewed the information and reports included in the Staff Report and Attachments
B & C. At the conclusion of their discussion, the Commission issued the following
recommendations:
•'* Maintain the current 2 -tier water conservation rates
•'* Eliminate the Senior -based Discount Program in favor of a Financial Affordability
Discount Program
The Commission's recommendation to maintain the current 2 -tier water conservation rates was
made with the recognition of the challenge in fostering water conservation without penalizing
larger- occupant households. Especially considering that larger households can conceivably have
superior water conservation measures compared to smaller households. In making their
recommendation, the Commission noted that there should be further study before any changes to
the conservation rates are made.
With regard to their recommendation to eliminate the Senior Discount Program, the Commission
noted that simply being retired and on a fixed income does not necessarily mean that a household
is at a financial disadvantage. They further noted that many young families in Roseville are
dealing with greater financial struggles than retirees, and therefore should not be asked to
subsidize their water and sewer services.
The Commission recommended that the senior - eligibility portion of the Program be eliminated,
while the affordability portion expanded based on further analysis of the potential number of
eligible homes and the impacts on rates.
ks�bWSEN+EhE
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Date: December 2, 2013
Item No.: 13.b
Department Approval City Manager Approval
Item Description: Confirm Citizen Advisory Commission Reappointment /Appointment
Schedule
BACKGROUND
The City has six standing commissions. Commissions advise the Council on specific actions and
offer citizens a way to provide input on issues of importance. The Council annually appoints
citizens to the commissions.
8
7 The City Council requests interviews, re- appoints Commissioners and /or declares vacancies on
8 the standing Commissions. At the December 6, 2004 City Council meeting, the Council passed a
9 resolution limiting Commissioners to two consecutive, three -year terms and requiring
lo Commissioners to reapply for reappointment to a second term. The resolution states that "A. No
11 later than sixty days ....the Council will consider whether to interview the commissioner; if two
12 council members request, a commissioner seeking reappointment will be scheduled to attend an
13 interview before the entire Council. B. Should the Council determine that the individual merits
14 reappointment, that person will be reappointed."
15
16 The commission application process has been refined over the years to efficiently and effectively
17 recruit candidates for commissions. To ensure availability for interviews, staff includes the
1P interview dates in the Requests for Council Actions and in the news releases and website
19 postings. By including the interview date in the notices, candidates can plan to be available that
20 day.
21
22 Once the application deadline closes, staff determines the number of applicants and sets
23 interview times. Candidates are notified by email and a follow up phone call. If we do not receive
24 confirmation, staff sends a letter confirming the interview date and time.
25
W
27
28
29
30
31
32
Commissioners are appointed to terms that begin April 1 of each year. The following
Commissioners' terms expire March 31, 2014:
Ethics Commission
Anne Collopy — not interested in reappointment
Benjamin Lehman— eligible and requests reappointment: attended four of four meetings
ss Human Rights Commission
34 Jill Brisbois - —not interested in reappointment
35 Kaying Thao — eligible (has not responded about interest in reappointment)
Page 1 of 2
Parks and Recreation Commission
Lee Diedrick — eligible and requests reappointment: attended eight of nine meetings
Greg Simbeck — not interested in reappointment
Planning Commission
James Daire — eligible and requests reappointment: attended seven of seven meetings
Michael Boguszewski — eligible and requests reappointment: attended eight of nine meetings
Police Civil Service Commission
Zoe Jenkins — eligible and requests reappointment: attended four of four meetings
Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission
James Debenedet — not eligible for reappointment
Jan Vanderwall — not eligible for reappointment
Applications for commissioners who wish to be reappointed will be available at the January 6
Council meeting.
Staff will contact commission chairs to get recommendations of reappointments.
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION
Confirm Citizen Advisory Commission Reappointment /Appointment Process
• January 6 — Applications from commissioners seeking reappointment will be included in
Council packet. Council may reappoint and /or determine which commissioners to
interview. If no commissioners are to be interviewed, staff begin advertising the
vacancies using the deadlines below.
• January 27 — Interview returning commissioners (if applicable).
• February 10 — Consider applications of commissioners who were re- interviewed, and
reappoint and /or declare vacancies. Authorize staff to advertise for the commission
vacancies with a March 12 at 4:30 p.m. deadline for applications.
• March 17 — Interview commission applicants before regular meeting. Start time depends
upon how many applicants to be interviewed.
• March 24— Appoint applicants to fill vacancies.
Prepared by: Patrick Trudgeon, Interim City Manager
Attachments: A: Resolution 10782
Page 2 of 2
Attachment A
EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING
OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City ouncil of the City '
to Y y of Roseville,
County of Ramsey, Minnesota was duly held on the 25 day f January, at 5:00 .m
Y y� p
The following members were present: Pust, Roe, Johnson, Ihlan and Klausing,
and the following were absent: none.
Member Klausing introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption-,
Resolution No. 10782
(supersedes Resolution 10266)
Reappointment Process and Term Limits Policy
Roseville Citizen Advisory Commissions
WHEREAS, the City of Roseville has six standing Advisory Commissions: Ethics Human Rights,
Parks and Recreation, Planning, Police Civil Service, and Public Works, Environment
and Transportation; and
WHEREAS, the City also establishes other advisory groups as needed; and
WHEREAS, numerous Roseville residents have volunteered their time and skills serving as
Commission members. The efforts and commitment of these volunteers have been an
important ingredient in Roseville's quality of life;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
. RESOLVED, that the Roseville City Council hereby adopts a
ReL.w)pointment and Term Limit Policy to establish a fair and open notification and
selection process that encourages all Roseville residents to apply for appointments.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member
Roe, and
upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Pust, Roe, Johnson, Ihlan and
Klausing,
and the following voted against the same: none.
WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
SS
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager of the City of Roseville, Minnesota, do hereby
certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of the
City Council of said City held on the 25th day of January, 2010, with the original thereof on file in my office,
and the same is a full, true and complete transcript.
Adopted by the Council this 25th day of January, 2010.
(SEAL)
Wi i J Malinen, City Manager
RESOLUTION ADOPTED: 1/25/2010
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
REAPPOINTMENT PROCESS AND TERM LIMITS POLICY
ROSEVILLE CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
N:������i�����
The City of Roseville has six standing Advisory Commissions:, Ethics, Human Rights, Parks and
Recreation, Planning, Police Civil Service, and Public Works, Environment and Transportation; the
City also establishes other advisory groups as needed.
POLICY STATEMENT:
It is the intent of this policy to establish a fair and open notification and selection process that
encourages all Roseville residents to apply for appointments.
PROCEDURE STATEMENT:
I.
If a vacancy occurs because of resignation, death, moving from the City, removal from office,
ineligibility for reappointment, etc., on any standing Advisory Commission, the following procedure
will be used.
A. When a Commission vacancy occurs the City Council, at a regular meeting, will establish a
deadline for receiving applications and the date of the Council Meeting to interview the
applicants. The time between the application deadline and the interviews shall be no more
30 days.
B. Commission vacancies will be advertised in the City's legal newspaper and, if different, the
Roseville Review at least two times before the application deadline. Vacancies will also be
advertised on Cable Television and posted on the City Hall Bulletin Board.
C. Applications received after the deadline will not be accepted.
D. Names of applicants and applications will be provided to the City Council and the public
after the application deadline.
E. If fewer applications are received than twice the number of openings, the City Council may
establish a new application deadline and Council Meeting for interviews. If a new deadline
is adopted, the vacancy will be re- advertised as described in "B ": above.
F. Applicants will be interviewed by the City Council. The Chair or the Chair's designee, of
the Commission to which the applicant is seeking appointment will be invited to attend and
participate in the interview process. Interviews are open to the public.
3
G. If a new vacancy occurs after an application deadline and before an appointment is made, a
new application process will be used as described in this procedure.
H. The City Council will make the appointments at the first Council meeting following
interviews.
I. Advisory Commission Applications shall be kept on file for one year. If during that year a
vacancy occurs on any Commission, all applicants will be advised of the vacancy in writing.
II.
If a current Commission member's term is expiring and is eligible for reappointment, the following
procedure will be used.
A. No later than sixty days prior to the expiration of a term, each commission member whose
term is expiring shall be contacted in writing and directed to complete a written
application for reappointment if they desire to be reappointed. For persons seeking
reappointment, the Council shall be advised of the attendance record of the individual
whose term is expiring. The Council will also be provided with written comments from
the Chairperson of the Commission regarding the reappointment of the individual. At that
time, the Council will consider whether to interview the commissioner; if two
councilmembers request, a commissioner seeking reappointment will be scheduled to
attend an interview before the entire Council
B. Should the Council determine that the individual merits reappointment, that person will be
reappointed.
C. Should the incumbent not wish to be reappointed or should the Council determine that the
individual does not merit reappointment, the Council will follow the procedure for filling
vacancies ad described in I. above.
APPOINTMENT TO OTHER CITY ADVISORY GROUPS
The Council may use the procedure outlined in Sections I. and II. above for making appointments to
other advisory groups, committees, task forces, etc.
TERM LIMITS
Members of all Advisory Commissions may serve a maximum of two full consecutive three -year
terms. The Council may reappoint a person for a period not exceeding one additional year if the
Council, by four -fifths vote determines that reappointment is n the best interest of such Commission
and the City.
11
KI;�6_01SEN+h+E
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Department Approval
Item Description: Discussion of Citywide Unified Purchasing
BACKGROUND
Date: 12/02/2013
Item No.: 14. a
City Manager Approval
The City Council previously indicated a desire to look at the process on how the City makes
3 purchases of equipment, materials, and supplies and to consider making purchasing more
4 centralized. Finance Director Chris Miller has prepared a memo discussing centralized and
5 decentralized purchasing. As Mr. Miller points out in the memo, the City currently uses both
6 centralized and decentralized purchasing approaches. This approach is based on the need to have
7 purchasing controls and consistency throughout the organization, but allowing of individuals or
s departments with specific expertise the make the decision.
9 For example, motor fuel purchases for all City vehicles are made by the Public Works
lo Department while the Finance Department makes purchasing decisions for all computer
11 equipment. Under this approach the City still benefits from bulk buying, but allows the
12 individual experts in their fields make the decision. The City uses the state contract when
13 purchasing whenever possible.
14 There are also specific purchases of equipment that only are utilized by one department, such as
bullet proof vests. In this case, the Police Department makes the specialized purchase based on
their own specifications and needs.
1 -7 POLICY OBJECTIVE
18 Ensuring that public dollars are spent in a responsible and efficient manner is a tenet of good
19 governance. The City of Roseville has created a purchasing framework that centralizes city -
20 wide purchases while allowing individual expertise to factor into having the most cost - effective
21 and efficient use of funds.
Z4 BUDGET IMPLICATIONS
'?-> All expected purchases are programmed into the City operating budget and /or the Capital
916 Improvement Program budget.
25 STAFF RECOMMENDATION
26 After reviewing the current arrangement of purchasing materials and equipment, staff does not
27 recommend any change in the purchasing procedures.
Page 1 of 2
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION
Will be based on discussion.
Prepared by: Patrick Trudgeon, Interim City Manager (651) 792 -7021
Attachments: A: Memo from Chris Miller discussing the purchasing of equipment, materials, and supplies by
the City.
Page 2 of 2
1,
ihE
Memo
To: Pat Trudgeon, Interim City Manager
From: Chris Miller, Finance Director
Date: August 28, 2013
Re: Overview of a Centralized vs. Decentralized Purchasing Function
Attachment A
Background
At a recent City Council meeting, a councilmember suggested that the City should consider switching
to a more centralized purchasing function. While the councilmember did not cite specific reasons why
they felt that a switch would be beneficial, I thought it would be purposeful to provide a brief overview
of two different purchasing approaches to be used for future discussion.
The remainder of this memo highlights the general advantages and disadvantages of a centralized and
decentralized purchasing function, along with an overview of the City's purchasing structure.
Centralized Purchasing Function
Under a centralized purchasing approach, purchasing policies and procedures are standardized to
ensure consistency across all organizational functions. This also tends to limit the ability of individual
units or individuals themselves from establishing separate procedures that may be subject to a lesser
amount of scrutiny and oversight.
A centralized purchasing approach typically includes a purchasing manager that is equipped with
specific education and skillsets that are conducive to effective purchasing decision making. The
purchasing manager is tasked with establishing procedures that maximize the value to the City by
taking advantage of bid pricing, discount programs, grant opportunities, etc.
The purchasing manager is also tasked with ensuring that purchases are in conformance with all state
and in some cases federal, statutes.
Decentralized Purchasing Function
In a decentralized purchasing approach, the purchasing function is more heavily dispersed within
separate organizational units. This approach is designed to promote a faster response to operational
needs and places budgetary accountability on the individuals that are utilizing the purchased goods and
services.
This is not to suggest that purchasing controls are absent under a decentralized approach. All
purchases, regardless of who initiates them must adhere to state statutes and internal purchasing
policies. However, under this approach there would be no one single individual or department that has
in -depth knowledge about all City purchases.
Overview of the City of Roseville Purchasing Structure
I have often commented publicly that the City has a decentralized purchasing function. This general
statement is intended to signify that the majority of all purchasing transactions are handled by
individual departments. In reality the City utilizes both centralized and decentralized purchasing
approaches. This hybrid approach provides for the necessary purchasing controls and consistency any
organization would desire, while placing the decision and accountability of purchasing specialized
goods and services in the hands of professionals with specific expertise.
Some of the City's centrally - purchased items include:
•'* Information systems such as network servers, computers, printers, etc.
•'* Office equipment including phones, copiers, and fax machines
•'* Enterprise software systems such as Word, Excel, and Laserfiche
•:* General legal services
•'* Employee healthcare and dental plans
•'* Motor fuel
The purchases of these items are centrally controlled to ensure efficiency and equity across all City
departments. It should be noted that although these purchasing decisions are centralized within the
organization, they are not necessarily centralized in the same manner. As an example, purchasing
decisions involving information systems are centralized in the Finance Department while motor fuel
purchases are made by Public Works.
In contrast, many of the goods and services we buy are made at the department level where specialized
expertise lies. They include:
•.* Fire trucks, squad cars, dump trucks, etc.
•'* Vehicle repair parts and supplies
•'* Playground equipment and park shelters
•'* Police and firefighting /EMS equipment
•'* Water and sewer infrastructure components
As these two lists suggest; the size, scope, and complexity of the City's operational needs dictate that
the City employs staff with specific purchasing expertise for each function the City carries out. Those
same staff members need to be fluent in how the purchasing decision affects program and service
outcomes. They also need to be cognizant of available joint-purchasing contracts, grant opportunities
and other cost - saving programs that are typically only available for specific purposes.
Final Comments
One might surmise that most cities began with a centralized purchasing function featuring an
individual or two that carried out purchasing duties that were relatively limited in scope. However, as
cities evolved and the complexities grew, cities increasingly needed to rely on specific knowledge and
skillsets. Decision - making as a whole (including purchasing) became further decentralized as a result.
Left unchecked, this decentralization could prove to be counter - effective and even invite missteps.
This underscores the need for proper policies, procedures, and internal controls — something that is
embedded into the training program of every employee that is assigned purchasing authority.
2