Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020_0921_CCPacket Address: City Council Agenda Phone: 651-792-7000 Monday, September 21, 2020 Website: (Or immediately following the EDA www.cityofroseville.com Meeting) Mayor: Following guidance from state health officials, City Council Members will Councilmembers: participate in upcoming meetings Jason Etten Lisa Laliberte Wayne Groff 13D.021. Robert Willmus Members of the public who wish speak during public comment or an agenda item during this meeting can do so virtually by registering at www.cityofroseville.com/attendmeeting 1. 7:00 P.M.Roll Call Voting & Seating Order:Willmusand Roe 2. 7:01 P.M.Pledge of Allegiance 3. 7:02 P.M.Approve Agenda 4. 7:03 P.M.Public Comment 5. Recognitions and Donations 6. Items Removed from Consent Agenda 7. Business Items 7.A. 7:05 P.M.Interview Applicants for Police Civil Service Commission Vacancy Amanda Becker Micah Courneya Richard Houck Aaron Peters Kathleen Reilly Eric Schwartz Documents: APPLICATIONS.PDF 7.B. 7:50 P.M.Adopt a Preliminary 2021 Tax Levy and Budget Documents: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AND ATTACHMENTS.PDF 7.C. 8:20 P.M.Civic Campus Master Plan Update Documents: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AND ATTACHMENTS.PDF 7.D. 9:00 P.M.Consider Co-hosting Discussion Series on Race with Community Partners Documents: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AND ATTACHMENT.PDF 7.E. 9:10 P.M.Consider Adoption of a Resolution Electing to Participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program Under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Documents: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AND ATTACHMENTS.PDF 8. Approval of City Council Minutes 9. Approve Consent Agenda 10. Future Agenda Review, Communications, Reports, and Announcements - Council and City Manager 11. 9:15 P.M.Adjourn Date: September 21, 2020 ItemNo.: 7.a Item Description: Interview Applicants for Police Civil Service Commission First Name Amanda Last Name Becker Address 1 193 Grandview Ave W Address 2 Field not completed. City Roseville State MN Zip Code 55113 How many years have you been a Roseville resident? 5 City of Roseville Commissions Finance Human Rights, Inclusion and Engagement Parks and Recreation Planning Police Civil Service Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission preference Human Rights, Inclusion and Engagement Commission preference Planning This application is for New Term If this is a student application please list grade in school Field not completed. Note There is no character limit for the fields below. Why do you want to serve on this Commission? I believe in the importance of local government and would like to find a way to participate in important conversations and discussions that effect my community. As a resident of Roseville for the past 5 years, I would like to help be a voice of the people, trying to represent multiple opinions, backgrounds and experiences. An opportunity to represent the voice of multiple people would also provide a chance for me to become more intimately engaged with my fellow Roseville residents. What is your view of the role of this Commission? To be sure that the views, opinions and experiences of all people in the community of Roseville are being represented and expressed in governmental decisions. To also find ways to use our public spaces for neighborhood education and community building. To bring more opportunity, depth and honor to the city of Roseville by acknowledging and engaging with our diversity of backgrounds, history and experiences. To be sure that everyone is treated fairly and that issues of equity find a space to be heard and addressed. What specific skills or experiences do you have that would be beneficial in serving on the advisory commission for which you are applying? As a Women and Gender studies major from Macalester College (class of 1999) and a Peace Corps volunteer (Russia 1999 - 2001), I first and foremost bring with me the skills of intense listening and curiosity. I am able to connect with people on a deeper level because I give them time, space and opportunity to share. I understand what it feels like to be vulnerable or to inhabit a space as a minority. I know the true value of a community (city) is to be found in the relationships between the people and the trust in the social/civil contract. I am also a film director and a producer, so I bring with me the skill of storytelling and a method by which to introduce myself to people and learn more about them. I also have some training in facilitation & leading consensus workshops. If you identified a second choice commission, please include skills or experiences that would be beneficial for serving on that commission. Again, I think the skills I would bring with me to the Human Rights, Inclusion and Engagement commission are the same - I think it's important to be able to study current maps, laws and infrastructure and be able to listen to needs and ask the appropriate questions. Civic and Volunteer Activities 2016-present - Northside Boxing Club volunteer / project manager (North Minneapolis, MN) 2009-2018 - Big Brother Big Sister volunteer (St. Paul, MN) 1999-2001 - Peace Corp Volunteer / English teacher (Pskov, Russia) Work Experience 2020-Present - Upswing Creative (St. Paul, MN) - Producer 2019-Present - Forty Arms, LLC (St. Paul, MN) - Independent Producer & Project Manager 2012-2019 - Bolster (Minneapolis, MN) - Producer & Project Manager 2010-2012 - Werc Werk Works (Minneapolis, MN) - Executive Assistant Education 2005-2006 - Vancouver Film School, writing & directing graduate (Vancouver, BC) 1995-1999 - Macalester College, Bachelor of Arts (St. Paul, MN) Women and Gender Studies Major | Philosophy Minor Is there additional information you would like the City Council to consider regarding your application? I thank you for your consideration. Preferred method to be contacted City staff contact all applicants approximately four days before the interviews to confirm interview date, time and location. Please indicate your preferred way to be notified. Preferred method to be contacted Email Please provide alternative phone number or email if different from above Additional Information if you become Board or Commission Member Additional information may be emailed to info@cityofroseville.com<mailto:info@cityofroseville.com> or delivered to Administration Department, City of Roseville, 2660 Civic Center Drive, Roseville, MN 55113 or faxed to 651-792-7020. Minnesota Government Data Practices Act Yes Minnesota Statute §13.601. subd. 3(b) Email Address Background Authorization Yes Acknowledgement Yes First Name Micah Last Name Courneya Address 1 1114 Brooks Ave W Address 2 Field not completed. City Roseville State MN Zip Code 55113 How many years have you been a Roseville resident? Less than one year City of Roseville Commissions Finance Human Rights, Inclusion and Engagement Parks and Recreation Planning Police Civil Service Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission preference Planning Commission preference Public Works, Environment & Transportation This application is for New Term If this is a student application please list grade in school Field not completed. Note There is no character limit for the fields below. Why do you want to serve on this Commission? I am a new resident of Roseville. My fiance and I recently purchased a house near Central Park. Choosing Roseville as the city to start a home was not an accident. It was deliberate. We wanted to live in Roseville. As a member of this community, it's my goal to be active here. This is where I will raise my children. It's important for me to have a voice in how this city continues to grow and shape itself 5, 10, 20 years from now. We all want our businesses to thrive and our community to prosper. It's important to me that members of my community feel as if they are listened to and I am a great listener. I am great at analyzing all sides of an issue and making judgments based on the best information available. I believe strongly that the community has a wide variety of viewpoints, based on experience, and those viewpoints need to be channeled to those who will listen and consider them. What is your view of the role of this Commission? I believe the role of this commission is to properly plan for and implement necessary changes in planning and development in a way that is equitable, fair, and adheres to the city's principles of governing. What specific skills or experiences do you have that would be beneficial in serving on the advisory commission for which you are applying? I bring to the table, a wide variety of experience that can help shape city development and planning. 1.Degree in political science and public administration 2.Service industry experience 3.Non partisan political experience at the state capitol, observing multiple different policy arenas 4.Currently working in the solar energy industry 5.Leadership 6.Policy team for current employer (advancement of consumer friendly solar policy and awareness) 7.Fresh and ambitious perspective If you identified a second choice commission, please include skills or experiences that would be beneficial for serving on that commission. I would say that the current experience I have mentioned applies to multiple different commission areas. For environmental planning, I currently work for a solar energy installer based out of St. Paul. Our goal is to build solar energy systems for homes and businesses. I also serve as a member of our policy team, whose purpose is to advance rooftop solar policy at the state and local level, as well as bring awareness to consumers of the benefits of rooftop solar. Civic and Volunteer Activities Field not completed. Work Experience 1.All Energy Solar-Team Lead, Inside Sales (Current) 2.MN House of Representatives-Sergeant-at-Arms (non partisan) 2014 and 2015 3.Store Manager-Dunn Brothers Coffee (2015-2018) Education Bachelor of Arts-Winona State University (2010) 1.Political Science 2.Public Administration Is there additional information you would like the City Council to consider regarding your application? Please strongly consider me for open commission seats. My goal is to serve my city and the community whom I would represent. If selected, you will get a bright, sociable, passionate individual who would serve his community with alacrity. Thank you. Preferred method to be contacted City staff contact all applicants approximately four days before the interviews to confirm interview date, time and location. Please indicate your preferred way to be notified. Preferred method to be contacted Telephone Please provide alternative phone number or email if different from above Field not completed. Additional Information if you become Board or Commission Member Additional information may be emailed to info@cityofroseville.com<mailto:info@cityofroseville.com> or delivered to Administration Department, City of Roseville, 2660 Civic Center Drive, Roseville, MN 55113 or faxed to 651-792-7020. Minnesota Government Data Practices Act Yes Minnesota Statute §13.601. subd. 3(b) Home/Cell Phone Background Authorization Yes Acknowledgement Yes Police Civil Service Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission preference Police Civil Service Commission preference Field not completed. This application is for New Term If this is a student application please list grade in school Field not completed. Note There is no character limit for the fields below. Why do you want to serve on this Commission? I am very much interested in the exceptional Roseville Police Force and want to see it maintained to full force with exemplary officers as we now have. What is your view of the role of this Commission? To make sure that Roseville maintains a full compliment of well trained officers who will act in compliance with the law in protecting the citizens of Roseville. What specific skills or experiences do you have that would be beneficial in serving on the advisory commission for which you are applying? I have served once before on the Police Commission and have known all of the police Chiefs and many of the officers over the years that I have lived in Roseville. If you identified a second choice commission, please include skills or experiences that would be beneficial for serving on that commission. Field not completed. Civic and Volunteer Activities I have served once before on the Police Commission. Work Experience Owner of Houck Transit Advertising for over 50 years. Education College Degree in Business and Economics Is there additional information you would like the City Council to consider regarding your application? I think they already know me. Preferred method to be contacted City staff contact all applicants approximately four days before the interviews to confirm interview date, time and location. Please indicate your preferred way to be notified. Preferred method to be contacted Email Please provide alternative phone number or email if different from above Field not completed. Additional Information if you become Board or Commission Member Additional information may be emailed to info@cityofroseville.com<mailto:info@cityofroseville.com> or delivered to Administration Department, City of Roseville, 2660 Civic Center Drive, Roseville, MN 55113 or faxed to 651-792-7020. Minnesota Government Data Practices Act Yes Minnesota Statute §13.601. subd. 3(b) Email Address Background Authorization Yes Acknowledgement Yes First Name Aaron Last Name Peters Address 1 1158 Transit Avenue Address 2 Field not completed. City Roseville State MN Zip Code 55113 How many years have you been a Roseville resident? 6 City of Roseville Commissions Finance Human Rights, Inclusion and Engagement Parks and Recreation Planning Police Civil Service Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission preference Parks & Recreation Commission preference Planning This application is for New Term If this is a student application please list grade in school Field not completed. Note There is no character limit for the fields below. Why do you want to serve on this Commission? My wife and kids love this area and we are rooted. I'm committed to being involved. What is your view of the role of this Commission? To provided an experienced, educated and unbiased observation of topics and issues at hand. The hope to positively contribute to the growth of the city where my home is. What specific skills or experiences do you have that would be beneficial in serving on the advisory commission for which you are applying? E-commerce/Technology programming (ie. HTML, IOS, Apple, Android, Windows, Microsoft, etc.). Website development/building ie. MinnesotaCops (mncops.org), Strategy and Process implementation, R.O.I. campaigns If you identified a second choice commission, please include skills or experiences that would be beneficial for serving on that commission. Field not completed. Civic and Volunteer Activities Youth Baseball Coach School chaperone for my kids school web administrator for Minnesota Chapter of Concerns of Police Survivors Work Experience PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE BUSINESS CONSULTANT | Independent Contract – Roseville, MN 06/19 – Present Partner with Dealer Principle and General Managers analyzing ongoing issues and determining best solutions increasing operations performance and customer satisfaction. Gather data detailing integration issues/vulnerabilities presenting findings to clients. Identify complex operations issues resolving efficiently and improving business development. Perform usability testing on Windows, Android, and iOS mobile devices. Monitor social media and online resources analyzing industry trends. •Designed specific E-commerce creatives for targeted markets using digital campaigns; ie. "Gas Grill Give Away", "Huge Screen TV Give Away", etc. I was then able to track the R.O.I. from these campaigns using their CRM software. •Integrated network software (i.e. CRM, DMS, IOS, Android, etc.) collaborating with developers/product owners, ensuring current information, and improving overall business ROI. •Led Quality Assurance program overseeing site evaluations, internal audits, and governance. •Established new business processes including targeted, web-based e-commerce programs increasing organic business growth while reducing expenses. AREA SALES MANAGER | C&F Finance Company – Richmond, VA 09/18– 06/19 Established regional sales and marketing programs realizing 40+ new accounts in new Minnesota market. Designed creative marketing campaigns increasing target customer engagements and overall brand awareness. Analyzed sales data keeping current with latest market trends. •Conducted targeted training programs increasing staff knowledge on product benefits and service capacity. •Established new business processes including targeted, web-based e-commerce programs increasing organic business growth while reducing expenses for more than 40 clients. Ie. "Bonus Monthly Flat", "Yeti 45 Give Away", etc. These programs resulted in additional financial penetration. •Increased Finance and Insurance per copy and total profit margin quarterly. •Gathered client database information presenting strategic plans reducing advertising budget, increasing ROI, and improving customer retention. SENIOR BUSINESS CONSULTANT | The Reynolds & Reynolds Company – Dayton, OH 09/13 – 12/17 Educated and collaborated (quarterly at a minimum) with clients across controls, risk exposures, client retention strategies, process weakness, and productivity inefficiencies. Interviewed and shadowed clients, collecting information and analyzing reports. Interpreted data determining weaknesses and improvement opportunities. Detailed process improvement and realistic aggressive growth objectives. Prepared budgets, reviewing P&Ls, and achieving margin targets consistently while aligning with company growth strategy. •Senior Business Consultant acknowledged for successfully completing software migrations and software launches in 43 of 50 states. •Shattered our status quo as the lead Consultant on a record 17-rooftop CRM and mobile application software launch involving more than 30 Reynolds Consultants and IT specialists. •Chosen to help develop and introduce an industry 1st technology - Digi Sales. A geo location sales application for Android and iOS devices using GPS. •Personally designed numerous successful E-commerce campaigns for targeted markets using digital creatives; ie. "Great Grill Give Away", "Flat Screen TV Bonus" "Factory Aftermarket Upfit", etc. I was then able to track their increased R.O.I. to the dollar using their CRM software which is attached directly to their DMS software. •. REGIONAL ACCOUNT MANAGER | CarSoup.com – Bloomington, MN 08/09 – 09/13 Cultivated long-term relationships with 150+ Twin Cities/Red River Valley franchise, independent, and Motorsports dealers. Identified digital advertising and marketing strategies increasing brand awareness and market reach. •Integrated database integrity improving Salesforce.com CRM efficiency. •Created and implemented digital marketing campaigns for clients such the Luther Auto Group, Walser Auto Group, Rydell Auto Group and many more. Campaigns were then broadcast as regional television advertisements. •I was responsible for the Regional Account Manager role/job title being established at CarSoup.com. This specific role provided the flexibility to sell to independent and franchise power sports and automotive dealerships in Minnesota and Wisconsin without geographic limits. •Eclipsed annual $1.5M revenue growth goals for 3 consecutive years by implementing key digital marketing programs and e-commerce initiatives. INTERNET SALES DIRECTOR |Romano Ford and Volkswagen – Fayetteville, NY 04/05 – 06/09 •Promoted to Internet Sales Director responsible for a team of up to 10 internet sales representatives. •Credited for developing the companies first Internet Sales/ Business Development Center in accordance with CRM software integration and OEM standards. •Aggressively surpassed company projections for total internet sales from 75 units in 2005 to over 390 units in 2008. •May 2008 – single month company wide sales goal record – 54 units sold and delivered. •Ford Blue Oval Certified Sales Consultant – Volkswagen Certified Sales Consultant Education EDUCATION Bachelor of Science in Business Administration & Management | State University of NY at Oswego – Oswego, NY Concentration in International Business & Economics Bachelor of Arts in Secondary Education – History | State University of NY at Oswego – Oswego, NY Is there additional information you would like the City Council to consider regarding your application? Field not completed. Preferred method to be contacted City staff contact all applicants approximately four days before the interviews to confirm interview date, time and location. Please indicate your preferred way to be notified. Preferred method to be contacted Telephone Please provide alternative phone number or email if different from above Field not completed. Additional Information if you become Board or Commission Member Additional information may be emailed to info@cityofroseville.com<mailto:info@cityofroseville.com> or delivered to Administration Department, City of Roseville, 2660 Civic Center Drive, Roseville, MN 55113 or faxed to 651-792-7020. Minnesota Government Data Practices Act Yes Minnesota Statute §13.601. subd. 3(b) Home/Cell Phone Background Authorization Yes Acknowledgement Yes First Name Kathleen Last Name Reilly Address 1 1363 Brooks Avenue West Address 2 Field not completed. City Roseville State MN Zip Code 55113 How many years have you been a Roseville resident? 30 plus City of Roseville Commissions Finance Human Rights, Inclusion and Engagement Parks and Recreation Planning Police Civil Service Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission preference Police Civil Service Commission preference Police Civil Service This application is for New Term If this is a student application please list grade in school Field not completed. Note There is no character limit for the fields below. Why do you want to serve on this Commission? I want to serve on the Commission because I have a back ground in criminal justice and social work. What is your view of the role of this Commission? Advisory. Be part of a team that works together to review, assess and recommend ideas to benefit the community and police force which is an important part of our Government and community. What specific skills or experiences do you have that would be beneficial in serving on the advisory commission for which you are applying? I have worked in Corrections and Social Work with the Courts, community and individuals as part of a multi faceted team of law enforcement, human services. Mental health , the courts, perpetrators and victims. I understand the individual roles of departments and individual agencies which is very helpful when looking at issues objectively. Without broad experience as I have it may be difficult to be an asset to the committee. If you identified a second choice commission, please include skills or experiences that would be beneficial for serving on that commission. No second choice at this time. Civic and Volunteer Activities Second Chance Animal Rescue. Roseville Parks. Volunteer Notary Public to Nursing Homes and those in hospitals without financial means to pay for the Notary service. Food Shelf before shut down. Work Experience *Cognitive Skills Group Facilitator (current) *Guardian ad Litem *Case Manager *Probation Officer *Program Manager *Domestic Abuse and Anger Management group Facilitator (current) Education BSW MN Licensed Social Worker Licensed Substitute teacher MN Certified Cognitive Skills Trainer Mediation Certification (inactive) Eric Schwartz 1972 Prior Ave Roseville Home or Cell Phone Number How many years have you been a Roseville resident? 6 Commission preference Police Civil Service Commission preference Field not completed. This application is for New Term Why do you want to serve on this Commission? llearned about the commission and think it's an excellent idea to have the public have a say in what is an important face of the community, the peace officers of our town. I moved here six years ago and my interactions with the police have been nothing but positive in a time when that is not always the case. I want to be a part of keeping it that way for myself, my children, and my neighbors. What is your view of the role of this Commission? To be a civilian voice in the choices made to be peace officers and protectors first as police officers. What specific skills or experiences do you have that would be beneficial in serving on the advisory commission for which you are applying? I do not know of any specific skills that I bring to the table beyond being a citizen of Roseville hoping to keep the good going with my point of view. I work in a field where compromise and listening are important. I strive to do that to balance the needs of all involved. Civic and Volunteer Activities Advancement Committee member at my child's elementary school Volunteer at Free Geek to help repair and repurpose computer parts REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date:September 21, 2020 Item No.: 7.b Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Adopt a Preliminary 2021 Tax Levy and Budget 1 B ACKGROUND 2 At the April 13, 2020 City Council meeting, the Council established a general timeline for the 2021 3 budget process including the following key dates: 4 2021 Budget Process TimelineDate Discussion on Preliminary Cash Reserve Levels 3/23/2020 Establish 2021 Budget Process Calendar4/13/2020 Review General Budget & Legislative Impacts, Tax Base Changes7/20/2020 Presentation of the 2021-2040 Capital Improvement Plan7/20/2020 Discussion on City Council Budgetary Goals7/20/2020 EDA Budget & Tax Levy Discussion7/20/2020 Receive the 2021 City Manager Recommended Budget8/10/2020 Receive Budget Recommendations from the Finance Commission9/14/2020 Adopt Preliminary 2021 Budget, Tax Levy, & EDA Levy9/21/2020 Review 2021 Proposed Utility Rates11/9/2020 Review 2021 Fee Schedule11/9/2020 Final Budget Hearing (Truth-in-Taxation Hearing)11/23/2020 Adopt Final 2021 EDA Tax Levy12/7/2020 Adopt Final 2021 Budget, Tax Levy, Utility Rates, & Fee Schedule12/7/2020 5 6 7 8 The next step in the 2021 Budget Process is to adopt a preliminary 2021 Tax Levy and Budget. 9 10 State Statute requires all cities in excess of 2,500 in population, to adopt a preliminary tax levy by 11 September 30th for the upcoming fiscal year. Once the preliminary levy is adopted it can be lowered, but 12 not increased. Accompanying the preliminary tax levy, the City has also historically adopted a 13 preliminary Budget which establishes the need for a tax levy. 14 15 The adoption of a preliminary tax levy and budget does not preclude further review. As noted in the table 16 above, additional budget-related discussions will be held later this year leading up to the adoption of the 17 final 2021 Tax Levy and Budget tentatively scheduled for December 7, 2020. 18 Page 1 of 4 19 2021 Recommended Tax Levy & Budget 20 The City Council received the 2021 City Manager Recommended Tax Levy and Budget on August 10, 21 2020. The information presented below refers to the City Manager recommended amounts as amended. 22 23 The 2021 Recommended Tax Levy is $23,538,859, an increase of $897,089 or 3.96%. The impact on 24 residents will vary depending on the property’s value and change in value relative to other properties in 25 the city. For 2021, themedian-valued home of $280,600 can expect to pay approximately $83.96 per 26 month; which is a decrease of $2.53 or -2.92%, per month from 2020 taxes, based on latest market value 27 data from Ramsey County. 28 29 This is independent of the impacts that will result from a lower EDA Levy and utility rate increases. The 30 combined effect of all three (as recommended) are depicted in the table below. 31 2021 Budget Impact on Median-Valued Home (monthly) 20202021$ Chg. Property Tax Levy: City$ 86.49$ 83.96$ (2.53) Property Tax Levy: EDA 1.93 1.77 (0.16) Utility Rates 60.60 63.80 3.20 Combined Total$ 149.01$ 149.53$ 0.51 32 33 34 35 There was a decrease to the overall city budget of $20,000 made by the City Manager to the th 36 Communications budget after the August 10Council meeting, due to the removing city web page 37 redesign from the 2021 budget. The overall 2021 City Manager Recommended Budget, as adjusted, is 38 $63,418,440, an increase of $654,785 from the previous year. The Budget for the property tax-supported 39 programs is $38,170,680, an increase of $345,510 or .9%. 40 41 At the September 14, 2020 City Council meeting, the Finance Commission recommended that the 2021 42 tax levy be increased equivalent to the three patrol positions which were removed, pending further details 43 from the City Manager and Police Chief. This would increase the levy by $276,300 which would impact 44 the monthly city tax by $1.08. See the chart below which depicts the budget impact. 45 2021 Budget Impact on Median-Valued Home (monthly) (with Finance Commission Recommendation) 20202021$ Chg. Property Tax Levy: City$ 86.49$ 85.04$ (1.45) Property Tax Levy: EDA 1.93 1.77 (0.16) Utility Rates 60.60 63.80 3.20 Combined Total$ 149.02$ 150.61$ 1.59 46 47 48 Attachment G shows estimated impacts on various valued homesteaded single family residential 49 properties and a range of commercial properties. 50 51 A summary and reconciliation of the 2021 Recommended Tax Levy & Tax-Supported OperatingBudget 52 is included in Attachment D. The proposed increase in the Tax Levy is summarized on the following 53 table. Page 2 of 4 2021 City Manager Recommended Budget Existing & General Impacts Existing Staff Costs (COLA 3% union/1% non-union, wage step increases, overtime, retirement, health insurance)$ 198,710.00 Supplies & Materials (net)$ 24,280.00 Contractual Services, Other Charges (net)$ 196,915.00 Subtotal$ 419,905.00 New Staffing Impacts AD: Wage Transfer - Comm Fund to Admin$ 15,000.00 PD: 1 Officer: Diversity Program$ 92,100.00 AD: Equity & Inlcusion Manager$ 110,000.00 PD: Record Tech Position Reclass$ 4,400.00 PD: Investigative Analyst Position Reclass$ 8,550.00 PD: Lead CSO decreased net of Sgt position$ (6,200.00) FD: 2 Lieutenants$ 30,000.00 FD: 3 Firefighters (net of reduced OT/Temp)$ 599,280.00 Subtotal$ 853,130.00 Adjusted Funding Sources Add: Communications levy$ 50,000.00 Add: Decreased non-tax revenues (net)$ 173,334.00 Less Add'l Non-Tax Rev.: SAFER Grant$ (599,280.00) Subtotal$ (375,946.00) City Manager Recommended Total Levy Impact$ 897,089.003.96% 3 police patrol officers and levy$ 276,300.001.22% Finance Commission recommendation levy impact$ 1,173,389.005.18% 54 55 56 At the August 10 City Council meeting, Councilmember Willmus asked for information about the 57 amount of commercial and housing projects that have been approved starting in January 2019 and 58 should be developed by December 2021. Below is the information requested: 59 60 Commercial SF 61 Avid Hotel = 40,000 SF 62 Chick Fil A = 4,791 SF 63 Aldi (Larpenteur)= 20,660 SF (includes only the net-add of SF) 64 McGough Headquarters = 54,000 SF 65 CPC = 137,000 SF 66 Extra Storage (across from REI) = 112,165 SF 67 Baldamar = 8,806 SF 68 Punch Pizza/Love from MN = 5,045 SF 69 Macy’s outlots (I got these numbers from the planning reports for drive-thrus) = 3,430 + 3,307 + 70 1,798 + 3,000 + 2,915 = 14,450 SF 71 Federal Hiway Credit Union (I got these numbers from the planning report for the drive-thrus) = 72 16,300 + 1,500 = 17,800 SF 73 Tareen Dermatology = 40,000 SF 74 Barole truck terminal = 26,510 SF 75 Total = 481,227 SF 76 77 Residential Units 78 New single family = 12 Page 3 of 4 79 Pres Homes –Langton Lake = 50 80 The Sanctuary = 103 81 Edison (phase 1) = 59 82 The Pointe = 93 83 Owasso Gardens (Common Bond) = 60 84 The Isaac (Reuter Walton) = 127 85 The Oasis (Dominium) = 228 86 Cty RD C 2 & Lexington townhomes = 32 th 87 Total = 764 (most of these apartment units likely wouldn’t come online until 4quarter of 88 2021) 89 P OLICY O BJECTIVE 90 Adopting a preliminary budget and tax levy is required under MN State Statutes. 91 F INANCIAL I MPACTS 92 See above and attached information. 93 S TAFF R ECOMMENDATION 94 Staff Recommends the Council adopt the preliminary 2021 Tax Levy and Budget as outlined in thie report 95 and in the attached resolutions. 96 R EQUESTED C OUNCIL A CTION 97 The Council is asked to take the following separate actions: 98 a) Motion to approve the attached Resolution adopting the 2021 Preliminary Tax Levy 99 b) Motion to approve the attached Resolution adopting the 2021 Prelimnary Debt Levy 100 c) Motion to approve the attached Resolution adopting the 2021 Preliminary Budget 101 Prepared by: Michelle Pietrick, Finance Director Attachments: A: Resolution to adopt the 2021 Preliminary Tax Levy, with an alternate B: Resolution to adopt the 2021 Preliminary Debt Levy C: Resolution to adopt the 2021 Preliminary Budget, with an alternate D: City Manager Recommended Tax Levy & Budget Information Package (from August 10,2020 City Council meeting) E: Combined Funds Financial Summary F: Citizen Budget Comments G: Excerpt of DRAFT Finance Commission minutes from September 8, 2020 meeting H: Tax Impacts to Residential and Commercial Properties based on various valuations 102 Page 4 of 4 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 21st day of September, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. The following memberswere present: and , and the following were absent: Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION RESOLUTION SUBMITTING THE PRELIMINARY PROPERTY TAX LEVY ON REAL ESTATE TO THE RAMSEY COUNTY AUDITOR FOR THE FISCAL YEAR OF 2021 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Roseville, Minnesota, as follows: The City of Rosevilleis submitting the following tax levy on realestate withinthecorporate limits of the City to the County Auditor in compliance with the Minnesota State Statutes. Purpose Amount Programs & Services $ 17,271,245 Capital 3,995,000 Debt Service2,272,614 Total $ 23,538,859 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. State of Minnesota) ) SS County of Ramsey) . Page 1 of 6 Attachment A 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 21st of September, 2020 with the original thereof on file in my office. WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this 21st day of September, 2020. Patrick Trudgeon City Manager Seal Page 2 of 6 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 21st day of September, 2020 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 2021 BONDED DEBT WHEREAS, the City will be required to make debt service payments on General Obligation Debt in 2020; and WHEREAS, there are reserve funds sufficient to partially reduce the originally scheduled levy for General Obligation Series 2009A. 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 2021 tax levy for General Improvement Debt by $116,943.45 from that which was originally scheduled upon the issuance of the bonds as follows: OriginallyAdditions Scheduledor Certified Bond IssueLevy AmountReductionsDebt Levy GO Housing Imp 2009A116,943.75 (116,943.75) - GO 2011A 836,828.70 0.30 836,829.00 GO 2012A 1,442,385.00 - 1,442,385.00 Total $ 2,396,157.45 $(116,943.45) $ 2,279,214.00 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: Page 3 of 6 Attachment B WHEREUPON, said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 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 21st day of September, 2020, with the original thereof on file in my office. WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this 21st day of September, 2020. Patrick Trudgeon City Manager Seal Page 4 of 6 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 21st day of September, 2020 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 PRELIMINARY 2020 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 2021 in the amount of $63,098,440, of which $38,170,680 is designated for the property tax-supported programs, be hereby accepted and approved The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: WHEREUPON, said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. State of Minnesota) ) SS County of Ramsey) Page 5 of 6 Attachment C I, undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey,State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 21st day of September, 2020, with the original thereof on file in my office. WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this 21st day of September, 2020. Patrick Trudgeon City Manager Seal Page 6 of 6 Attachment A-Alternate EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE *********** Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota was duly held on the 21st day of September, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. The following memberswere present: and , and the following were absent: Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION RESOLUTION SUBMITTING THE PRELIMINARY PROPERTY TAX LEVY ON REAL ESTATE TO THE RAMSEY COUNTY AUDITOR FOR THE FISCAL YEAR OF 2021 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Roseville, Minnesota, as follows: The City of Rosevilleis submitting the following tax levy on realestate withinthecorporate limits of the City to the County Auditor in compliance with the Minnesota State Statutes. PurposeAmount Programs & Services$ 17,547,545 Capital 3,995,000 Debt Service 2,272,614 Total$ 23,815,159 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. State of Minnesota) ) SS County of Ramsey) . Page 1 of 4 Attachment A-Alternate 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 21st of September, 2020 with the original thereof on file in my office. WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this 21st day of September, 2020. Patrick Trudgeon City Manager Seal Page 2 of 4 Attachment C-Alternate 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 21st day of September, 2020 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 PRELIMINARY 2020 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 2021 in the amount of $63,374,740, of which $38,446,980 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. State of Minnesota) ) SS County of Ramsey) Page 3 of 4 Attachment C-Alternate 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 21st day of September, 2020, with the original thereof on file in my office. WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this 21st day of September, 2020. Patrick Trudgeon City Manager Seal Page 4 of 4 Attachment D-9212020 City Manager 2021 Budget Memo City Manager Patrick Trudgeon City of Roseville 8/10/2020 Attachment D-9212020 Administration Department Memo To: Roseville City Council cc: Roseville Department Heads From: Patrick Trudgeon, City Manager Date: August 10, 2020 Re: City Manager 2021 Proposed Budget 2 I am pleased to present my proposed 2021 City of Roseville budget. I have approached the 3 creation of the 2021 budget mindful of financial challenges that both the city and taxpayers face 4 due to the COVID-19 pandemic while making sure the city maintains our existing assets and 5 services and invest in new import initiatives. 6 7 As I mentioned in the 2020 budget message, Roseville is a complex city that serves a larger 8 population than its actual residents. As a regional commercial and retail destination that has 9 35,000 persons journey to Roseville daily for their work and up to 80,000 people traveling through 10 Roseville daily on Hwy 36, I 35W, and our numerous County Roads, Roseville is a busy place. 11 12 These visitors use RosevilleÓs roads, parks, and city services. We need to respond to medical and 13 law enforcement issues regardless of whether they are Roseville residents or not. All this activity 14 requires the city to allocate additional resources above what is needed for a community of 15 RosevilleÓs size. 16 17 The disruption that the COVID-19 pandemic has caused for local government, schools, 18 businesses, and residents reinforces the importance of local government to continue serving 19 the needs of the community, its residents, and businesses. The murder of George Floyd in 20 Minneapolis is an opportunity for self-reflection by local government about its role in systemic 21 racism. Both unique moments in time have been factored into the 2021 budget. 22 23 The 2021 budget continues past budget proposals in addressing the increasing demands on city 24 services and continues investment into our existing assets in a responsible and sustainable manner. 25 As part of the 2020 budget, we eliminated the use of the General Fund Reserves to balance the 26 budget and pay for city operations. 27 28 In the last decade, the City of Roseville has stabilized our funding for capital needs. We now have 29 sufficient resources in place for the next 20 years for most of our infrastructure and equipment 30 funds. We will need to continue to work on several capital funds in the near term, namely the 31 Water Fund, the General Facilities Fund, and the Park Improvement Fund, to ensure sufficient Page 1 of 20 Attachment D-9212020 32 funding for capital replacement in the future, making the operating budget balanced and more 33 sustainable. 34 The following pages outline the proposed 2021 budget and its financial impact. They also provide 35 details of my budget prioritiesand recommendations for new spending. 36 37 The proposed 2021 budget totals $63,118,400 and represents a 1% increase from 2020. 38 Inflationary and new costs for staff, supplies, and services contribute to the increase. It should be 39 noted that the 2020 budget increased by over 12%, mostly due to the inclusion of $5 million of 40 funds to repair and update the OVAL. This funding level for the OVALremains in the budget for 41 2021 and expenditures will only be made if bonding money from the State of Minnesota is 42 approved. 43 44 Personnel Services comprise the largest amount of the budget followed by Other Services and 45 Charges and Capital Outlay 46 47 48 49 Traditionally, the city budget is divided into two categories: Property Tax-Supported and Fee- 50 Supported. It is important to note that there is fee revenue for items in the Property Tax Supported 51 portion of the budget. However, the single-largest funding source does come from property taxes. 52 Below is table showing the breakdown between property tax levy and fee revenues for the 2021 53 budget. 54 Page 2 of 20 Attachment D-9212020 Budget Funding Sources ProgramProperty+/- OtherTotal FunctionRevenueTaxesSources*Sources Police$ 1,045,435$ 7,036,478$ 826,317$ 8,908,230 Fire 1,058,580 3,911,601 (517,828) 4,452,353 Parks & Recreation 2,515,275 5,446,756 419,150 8,381,181 Public Works 2,681,167 3,942,950 9,633 6,633,750 Administrative Services 709,800 2,225,074 (160,274) 2,774,600 Information Technology3,519,841 150,000 (327,335) 3,342,506 General Facilities 5,000,000 776,000 (597,100) 5,178,900 Water, Sewer, Storm 15,129,215 - 928,935 16,058,150 Other* 7,388,770 - - 7,388,770 Total 39,048,083$ $ 23,488,859$ 63,118,440581,498$ 55 56 57 58 *Other Function Sources include license & permit fees, revenues from regional collaborations, 59 interest earnings, and others. Negative balances in Other Fund Sources category depicts funds set aside for 60 future capital replacements. 61 62 The Property Tax-Supported budget is projected to grow by $395,510 or 1% in 2021 due to 63 increased inflationary costs and new personnel costs. Half of the costs of the 2020 Property Tax- 64 Supported budget is for Personnel Services followed by 25% used for Capital Outlays. 65 66 67 68 The Fee-Supported part of the proposed 2020 budget grew by $279,275 or 1.1%. This increase is 69 due to new personnel and for Other Services and Charges, of which are payments to Metropolitan 70 Council and St. Paul Regional Water for sewer and water charges. 71 Page 3 of 20 Attachment D-9212020 72 73 Page 4 of 20 Attachment D-9212020 74 75 76 77 Like previous budgets, most funds are used for operational needs as depicted below: 78 79 Budget Funding Uses Princ & IntTotal FunctionOperationsCapitalon DebtUses Police$ 8,535,145$ 373,085$ 8,908,230-$ Fire 3,685,890 97,000 669,463 4,452,353 Parks & Recreation 5,208,430 1,563,000 1,609,751 8,381,181 Public Works 2,929,250 3,704,500- 6,633,750 Administrative Services2,653,200 121,400- 2,774,600 Information Technology3,187,256 155,250- 3,342,506 General Facilities 5,178,900- - 5,178,900 Water, Sewer, Storm 12,670,650 3,387,500- 16,058,150 Other* 7,370,145 18,625- 7,388,770 Total46,239,966$ $ 14,599,260$ 2,279,214$ 63,118,440 80 81 82 *Other Funding Uses Include: license center, planning & inspections, and others 83 84 85 City Manager 2021 Budget Strategies 86 87 My approach to the 2021 budget is centered around four main strategies. These strategies are as 88 follows: 89 90 1)Adjusting budget funding sources 91 2)Investment in equity 92 3)Investment in public safety 93 4)Investment in city workforce 94 As a result of these priorities, I am proposing a total net property tax levy increase of $897,089 for 95 a 3.96% levy increase over 2020. For a median-valued Roseville home ($280,600), this represents 96 an 0.6% decrease over last year or a reduction of $6.60 annually. 97 98 The next two pages are a summary of the proposed 2021 City Manager Budget followed by 99 detailed information about the specifics of my identified funding strategies. 100 Page 5 of 20 Attachment D-9212020 101 102 103 Summary of City Manager Proposed 2021 City of Roseville Budget 104 105 Proposed 2021 Budget Amount 106 Property Tax-Supported $38,170,680 107 Fee-Supported $24,947,760 108 Total$63,118,440 109 110 Proposed 2021 Budget by Category 111 Personnel Services $25,756,769 112 Supplies and Materials $ 1,530,675 113 Other Services and Charges $18,076,522 114 Capital Outlay $14,599,260 115 Debt Service $ 2,279,214 116 TIF $ 876,000 117 Total$63,118,440 118 119 Proposed 2021 Tax Levy Summary 120 Operations$16,966,245 121 Capital $ 4,300,000 122 Debt $ 2,272,614 123 Total$23,538,859 124 125 Summary of Tax Levy Changes in 2021 Budget 126 Inflationary Costs for Staff, Supplies and Services $ 643,239 127 New Staffing (Levy Supported-Net) $ 253,850 128 New Levy Impact Sub-Total $ 897,089 129 130 Levy Dollar Impact Total $897,089 131 132 Proposed Levy Increase % 3.96% 133 Monthly Cost Impact on Median-Value Home -$0.55 134 Annual Cost Impact on Median-Value Home -$6.60 135 Proposed % Increase of Cost for Median-Value Home -0.6% 136 137 138 139 140 Page 6 of 20 Attachment D-9212020 141 142 143 City of Roseville Summary of Tax Levy Changes For 20212021 Budget Existing & General Impacts Existing Staff Costs (COLA 3% union/1% non-union, wage step increases, overtime, retirement, health insurance)$ 1 98,710 Supplies & Materials24,280$ Contractural Services & Debt Service $ 1 96,915 Sub-total$ 4 19,905 New Staffing Impacts AD: Admin Intern$ 1 5,000 PD: 1 Officer: Diversity Program$ 9 2,100 AD: Equity & Inclusion Manager$ 1 10,000 PD: Record Tech Position Reclass$ 4 ,400 PD: Investigative Analyst Position Reclass$ 8 ,550 PD: Lead CSO decreased net of Sgt position(6,200)$ FD: 3 Lieutenants$ 3 0,000 FD: 6 Firefighters $ 5 99,280 Sub-total$ 8 53,130 Adjusted Funding Sources Add: Communications levy$ 5 0,000 Add: Decreased non-tax revenues (net)$ 1 73,334 Less Add'l Non-Tax Rev.: SAFER Grant(599,280)$ Sub-total(375,946)$ Total Levy Impact $ 8 97,089 144 145 146 Page 7 of 20 Attachment D-9212020 147 Adjusting Budget Funding Sources 148 Provide Levy Support for Communication Functions 149 2021 Levy Impact: Increase of $50,000 150 Revenue from cable franchise fees are placed in the cityÓs Communication Fund. In 151 recent years, the amount of franchise fee revenue has been decreasing. As a result, the 152 following structural changes were made as part of the 2020 budget: 153 1)The portion of the salary paid from the Communications Fund (a total of $67,010) for 154 the Assistant City Manager and Deputy Clerk position are now paid from the property 155 tax levy moving forward. 156 2)Communication capital equipment is now funded by the Facility Replacement Fund 157 and not the Communications Fund. 158 As part of the final approval of the 2020 City Budget, the City Council removed $45,000 from the 159 Communications budget to ensure financial sustainability sooner. Based on that cut, staff has 160 moved $20,000 of planned capital purchases from within the 2020 Communications operating 161 budget to the facility fund. Additional review and discussion on where the remaining $25,000 162 would be cut from the budget and organizational structure review was pending when the COVID- 163 19 pandemic began and has not been completed. 164 165 In reviewing the current need to continue to fully use our communication resources during the 166 pandemic while still being fiscally responsible regarding the balance of the Communications 167 Fund, I propose the following: 168 169 Cuts of $9,000 from the 2020 Communications Budget 170 o Professional Services - $5,000 171 o Operating Supplies - $1,000 172 o Conferences - $1,000 173 o Miscellaneous - $2,000 174 One-time transfer of $16,000 from the Finance Equipment Replacement Fund to the 175 Communications Fund. Funds were allocated in the Finance Equipment Replacement 176 Fund in 2019 for the purchase/upgrade of our current financial management program, 177 Springbrook, that came in substantially less than budget. 178 The above described actions will need to be taken up as a separate 2020 budget amendment 179 process, which staff will bring forward in the future. 180 181 For 2021, there will need to be additional funding to correct the structural imbalance in funding. 182 A couple factors to keep in mind regarding the 2021 Communications budget. 183 1)The amount of revenue being received from cable tv subscribers has seemed to 184 stabilize in the last 18 months to about $95,000 per quarter. While that is still less 185 than what we received a few years ago, the stabilization of revenue does help for 186 planning purposes. Page 8 of 20 Attachment D-9212020 187 2)As was mentioned earlier, an organizational structure review of our 188 communications functions was underway as the state entered into the COVID-19 189 pandemic. Due to the pandemic and the disruption after George FloydÓs death in 190 Minneapolis, leadership and the communications staff have been busy 191 communicating and maintaining information pertaining to those dynamic events. 192 As a result, not only has the organizational review not moved forward, I have 193 determined that it is not in the best interest of the city at this time to try to 194 implement a new communications organizational structure. In addition, with my 195 proposal to add an Equity and Inclusion Manager in 2021, I believe it is 196 imperative to have that position in place and help provide guidance regarding our 197 communications organizational structure. 198 Based on those factors, I am planning on keep the current communications organizational 199 structure in place for 2020 and re-look at the communication functions in 2021. 200 201 However, there still is a need to financially stabilize the Communications Fund in 2021. 202 Therefore, I am proposing adding $50,000 of new city tax levy fund to supplement the cityÓs 203 communications operations. 204 205 This additional $50,000 coupled with the expected revenue received from cable tv franchise fees 206 and current Communication Fund reserves will allow us to maintain the minimum fund balance 207 for the fund per the CityÓs financial policies. 208 Projected Balance 12/31/2020 $ 94,006.00 Revenue 2021 Projected* $ 435,740.00 Expenditures $ 472,161.00 Balance 12/31/2021 $ 57,585.00 209 210 *Includes $385740 of cable tv franchise fees and $50,000 of general tax levy support 211 212 Note: Communications Fund target levels are 10% to 30% of expenditures. For 2021, this range is $47,780 - $143,340. 213 214 On May 1, 2020, the City Council moved $124,947 from the Communications Fund to the Cash 215 Reserve Fund per the cityÓs Operating Fund Reserve Policy. As an alternative to raising the levy 216 by $50,000, the City Council could authorize the transfer of that same amount to the 217 Communication Fund. I did review that possibility but find it only a short-term fix that will still 218 require us to find a more sustainable funding source for our communications efforts. Therefore, I 219 proposed to add general levy support to our communications efforts starting in 2021. 220 221 Shift Levy Support from Streets Operations Budget to Pavement 222 Management Fund 223 2021 Levy Impact: $0 224 225 In 2015 the city elected to pause its seal coat program to better understand why roads that 226 have been seal coated were experiencing premature issues with the surface of the roadway 227 (delamination). Until staff understands what the problem is, it was not advisable to invest 228 more dollars into the seal coat program. 229 Page 9 of 20 Attachment D-9212020 230 It was decided at that time that the dollars would remain in the budget for the seal coat 231 program and we would use those dollars to accelerate the mill and overlay program to catch 232 up on dealing with the problem city wide. Annually we would transfer the funds from the 233 operating budget to the CIP budget. 234 235 Today we are no closer to understanding the cause of the problem now after 5 years. 236 Therefore, I am recommending that we simply show that $250,000 in the CIP Budget as 237 additional income with the description Ðformer seal coat dollarsÑ so we can track those 238 dollars if we ever do want to resume the seal coat program. Ultimately this makes the 239 implementation of the proposed budget cleaner and easier and is just a shift of levy dollars 240 from the operating budget to the CIP. 241 Page 10 of 20 Attachment D-9212020 242 Investment in Equity 243 Create Equity and Inclusion Manager Position 244 2021 Levy Impact: Increase of $110,000 245 246 On May 25, 2020, George Floyd was killed because of former Minneapolis Police Officer Derek 247 Chauvin putting a knee on FloydÓs neck for almost 8 minutes. The anger and outrage that led to 248 protests and civil unrest because of FloydÓs death was historic and unprecedented. For us in 249 Roseville, FloydÓs death recalled the death of Philando CastileÓs at the hand of St. Anthony Police 250 Officer Jeromino Yanez in 2016. After CastileÓs death in 2016, the City of Roseville initiated a 251 series of policy changes in the City of Roseville Police Department and began publishing data 252 regarding traffic stops and use of force. The City of Roseville also helped facilitate a total of five 253 community conversations, entitled Imagine Roseville, centered around race and policing. City 254 staff has participated in the Government Alliance for Race and Equity (GARE) and created a 255 racial equity plan to begin the process of eliminating biases and systemic racism in RosevilleÓs 256 policies, services, and programs. 257 258 The death of George Floyd strongly reiterated the importance of this work and created a greater 259 urgency to engage in equity and anti-racist work. While the city has intentionally focused on this 260 work over the past few years, it is clear that we must be doing more to ensure that our residents, 261 especially persons of color, feel welcome in Roseville and do not encounter barriers in 262 participating in a full civic life. 263 264 George FloydÓs death has made it clear that the City of Roseville cannot fully work on race equity 265 issues with the existing resources and staff. Not only is there a staff and workload capacity issue, 266 there also is a competence and authenticity issue that the city must address. Additional resources 267 must be brought to bear that have the knowledge, both though education and lived experience, to 268 advance racial equity work in the organization and the community. 269 270 Therefore, in the 2021 budget, I am proposing a new position of Equity and Inclusion Manager. 271 This position will be located in the Administration Department and work directly with the City 272 Manager and Assistant City Manager and serve as a member of the Department Head Leadership 273 team to better embed equity and inclusion principals into all city operations, projects, and services. 274 275 This position will be the city subject matter expert on equity, inclusion, outreach, and engagement 276 and be in the lead in breaking down barriers that will create a more just, inclusive, and welcoming 277 community. 278 279 The main duties and responsibilities for the Equity and Inclusion Manager are: 280 1.Provides leadership and direction for advancing equity and inclusion within the 281 organization and the impact on the Roseville community by doing the following: 282 o Recommend, develop, implement, and support organizational initiatives, 283 objectives and strategies related to the advancement of equity and inclusion. 284 o Serve as a change agent within the organization and a resource to fellow City 285 staff and officials in identifying and removing structural bias and inequities in 286 City policies, programs, and services. Page 11 of 20 Attachment D-9212020 287 o Serves as a member of the CityÓs ManagerÓs Leadership Team, contributing to 288 the organizationÓs leadership philosophy, vision and values and working to 289 address cross-organizational issues having significant, long-term impact for 290 our staff and community. 291 2.Provide daily direction, coordination and supervision of staff working in equity, 292 inclusion, and outreach roles by doing the following: 293 o Assist staff in ensuring equity is considered for new and existing programs and 294 policies by developing training, providing data, support, and recommendations. 295 o Assigns responsibilities, and delegates work to staff as it relates to equity and 296 inclusion efforts. 297 o Provides training and support to City staff, Council, and Commissions. Assists 298 staff members, teams and work groups in understanding and applying trainings 299 to their day-to-day work. 300 o Works cross-departmentally and throughout the organization; participates on 301 and often leads cross-departmental teams, work groups and committees to 302 establish and implement equity and inclusion strategies and achieve strategic 303 objectives. 304 o Work with staff on the development, deployment, and progress measurements 305 of racial equity action plans. 306 o Provides guidance and direction in outreach activities. 307 3.Serves as educational and expert liaison to the public, staff and elected and appointed 308 officials be doing the following: 309 o Serves as the staff liaison to the Human Rights, Inclusion and Engagement 310 Commission. 311 o Provides guidance to other commissions and committees as needed for the 312 advancement of equity and inclusion. 313 o Develops metrics, benchmarks and goals for equity and inclusion initiatives and 314 provides regular reports to the City Manager and City Council. 315 o Represents the City to other levels of government on equity and inclusion 316 initiatives and serve as a reputable subject matter expert on relevant 317 issues/topics. 318 o Represents the City at community events that pertain to equity initiatives and 319 proactively ensures that the City is adequately represented at such events. 320 o Collaborates with other organizations and groups in advancing equity and 321 inclusion goals. 322 Total new levy costs for the Equity and Inclusion Manager included in City ManagerÓs proposed 323 2021 budget: 324 325 326 Funding for Equity and Inclusion Manager $110,000 327 Total$110,000 328 Page 12 of 20 Attachment D-9212020 329 Investment in Public Safety 330 Public safety is a core service that taxpayers expect from local government. 331 Over the past several years, the City Council has had several conversations regarding staffing for 332 public safety. These conversations identified some trends that are occurring which requires the 333 city to explore how to best respond to these changes. 334 335 Police Department 336 Last year, the Roseville Police Department presented information regarding the need for 337 additional police officers. The need for increased staffing is due to several factors that have 338 occurred over the past few years. They include: 339 Increasing number of calls for service 340 Decreasing case clearance rate 341 Increasing complexity of calls for service 342 Increasing crime rate 343 Increasing training demands 344 Increasing population and development 345 The 2020 budget added three officers to the Police Department: two patrol officers and one 346 investigator for criminal sexual conduct (CSC) cases. For 2020, the CSC investigator position 347 was funded by a Ramsey County grant from County Attorney John ChoiÓs office. The two new 348 patrol offices served on a flex shift to assist the department in busy times of the day. 349 350 2020 has been an unusual year given the COVID-19 pandemic and the George Floyd death as 351 previously mentioned. The city experienced near shut down of most businesses in the spring due 352 to the pandemic and micro-looting, property damage, and the institution of a city-wide curfew as 353 part of the civil unrest in the aftermath of the George FloydÓs death. As a result, it is difficult to 354 ascertain at this point the impact of these additional officers. There were more vacancies in the 355 Police Department than expected, so the Police Department not at full-strength until early this 356 summer. 357 358 The Police Department has requested three police officers (all three in patrol) in its 2021 budget. 359 In 2020, Chief Mathwig indicated that there would be a request for an additional 3 police officers 360 as part of the 2021 budget. For 2021, the costs for the three officers will be $276,300. 361 362 Finally, for the 2021 budget, the Police Department has requested funding for the Commitment to 363 Diversity staffing program which the City Council approved earlier in 2019. The Commitment to 364 Diversity program allows the Police Department to add up to two additional police officer 365 positions above the normal complement (currently at 51 officers) when there is not a vacant 366 position and there is an existing Roseville CSO, police cadet, or police reserve who is a minority 367 in law enforcement and licensed to become a police officer. 368 369 Staff originally anticipated that the Commitment to Diversity program would need to be used in 370 2020 to retain one of RosevilleÓs CSOs. However, due to unplanned vacancies, the CSO was Page 13 of 20 Attachment D-9212020 371 able to fill a vacant position and funding for the Commitment to Diversity Officer was removed 372 from the 2020 budget 373 374 The Police Department is asking for funding for one Commitment to Diversity police officers in 375 the 2021 budget at a cost of $92,100. Next year, it is anticipated that there may be up to three 376 candidates that would be eligible to fill the Commitment to Diversity officer position. 377 378 The Police DepartmentÓs overall request related for new spending related to staffing in the 2021 379 budget is as follows: 380 381 New Police Officers (3) $276,300 382 Funding for Commitment to Diversity Police Officers (2) $ 92,100 383 Total $368,400 384 385 City Manager Recommendation Î Police Department Staffing 386 2021 Levy Impact: Increase of $92,100 387 From the Police DepartmentÓs request, I have only included funding for the Commitment to 388 Diversity officer position. Given the number of eligible candidates we will have to fill that 389 position in 2021, it is important that we create funding to ensure that a diverse candidate joins the 390 Roseville Police Department. Knowing that there may be continued turnover in the Police 391 Department as officers retire, I am counting that there will be some vacant officer positions that 392 other existing CSO or cadet position can fill. 393 394 I have not included the three requested police officers in the 2021 budget for a couple of reasons. 395 First and foremost, given the havoc that the COVID-19 pandemic has caused for businesses, 396 residents, and the economy, I have attempted to minimize adding additional tax burden and have 397 focused on funding existing services and only very urgent priorities. These priorities have evolved 398 throughout 2020 as previously mentioned. Therefore, to add slightly over $275,000 of additional 399 tax burden to the taxpayers is not feasible this year. Beyond the fiscal reason, it is important to 400 note that the Roseville Police Department will be seeing a leadership change as Chief Rick 401 Mathwig will be retiring. His retirement will allow the new chief to look at the organization with 402 a fresh set of eyes to look at the organizational structure of the Police Department. I do expect 403 there will need to be continued discussion on ensuring Roseville has the proper amount of 404 personnel in the field to ensure that the increasing call loads are properly addressed. 405 406 It should be noted that the CSC Investigator position that was part of the 2020 budget through 407 grant funds is now fully funded by tax levy in the 2021 budget 408 409 Total new levy costs for the Police Department staffing requests included in City ManagerÓs 410 proposed 2021 budget: 411 412 Funding for Commitment to Diversity Police Officer (1) $ 92,100 413 Total$ 92,100 414 415 Fire Department 416 In 2015, the Roseville Fire Department began the transition to a full-time firefighter staffing 417 model. To date, there are now 18 full-time firefighters (in addition to the Fire Chief and Assistant 418 Fire Chief). In 2018, the City Council received a presentation from the Fire Department regarding Page 14 of 20 Attachment D-9212020 419 future staffing needs. As outlined, the Fire Department determined that an additional nine 420 firefighters were needed to properly staff for current Fire Department needs. As a result of the 421 additional nine firefighters, each of the 24-hour shifts would have eight firefighters on-duty 422 compared to just five currently. 423 424 As a reminder, the additional staffing is needed due to: 425 Increased development during the past several years, especially among facilities that 426 require a heavy-resourced response by the Fire Department, such as senior multi- 427 family housing and assisted living units 428 Shrinking base of part-time firefighters, resulting in an inconsistent ability and delay 429 in arriving for call-back assistance for critical incidents and coverage for additional 430 emergencies 431 Increases in number of calls that the Fire Department is responding to that are 432 stretching the ability of the Fire Department to respond to multiple emergencies at the 433 same time in a consistent manner. 434 The need to stay compliant with the National Fire Protection Association 435 recommendations regarding the number of firefighters on the fire ground to keep the 436 public and firefighters safe. 437 For the 2020 budget, the City Council approved adding three firefighters. These additional 438 firefighters were all put on one shift to demonstrate the impact that an eight-person shift can have 439 on operations. Some of the results the department experienced when the eight-person shift was on 440 duty are as follows: 441 442 A decrease of all-calls during that shift period 443 A decrease in overtime during that shift period 444 A more effective fire ground that allowed for two crews to attack a structure fire 445 during that shift period 446 A better ability to respond to mutual aid without calling back full-time or part-time 447 personnel during that shift period 448 The ability to staff two medical response vehicles during that shift period 449 As was mentioned as part of the Police Department discussion, 2020 has been an unusual year. 450 The Fire Department is responsible for emergency management functions, so they took the lead in 451 preparing the city for our COVID-19 response. They successfully obtained PPE for public safety 452 and other city employees and worked with city leadership in preparing the organization for the 453 effects of the pandemic. On top of that, the Roseville Fire Department responded to St. Paul to 454 fight numerous fires during civil unrest in the aftermath of George FloydÓs death. 455 456 Given the identified needs and previous discussions with the City Council regarding the total 457 complement of full-time fire fighters, the Fire Department is proposing to add six full-time 458 firefighters in the 2021 budget. Previously, it was anticipated that three firefighters would be 459 requested in 2021 and in 2022. It was anticipated that grant funds would be applied for through 460 the SAFER federal grant program to help reduce the city cost for the first three years of employing 461 the fire fighters. Fortunately, due to the pandemic, the SAFER grant program changed its funding 462 approach and will now fund the costs of a firefighter 100% for three years. As a result, we applied Page 15 of 20 Attachment D-9212020 463 for funding for a total of six firefighters. We expect to hear about the SAFER grant by mid- 464 August and feel we are positioned well to receive grant funds. 465 466 The Fire Department has also requested the creation of Lieutenant positions that would be added 467 to the organizational structure. This will allow for an additional supervisor to the shift crew that 468 can supervise when the Battalion Chief overseeing that shift is absent. Having a Lieutenant 469 position will also allow for a more graduated leadership progression for firefighters. Moving from 470 a firefighter to a Battalion Chief in the current system is a big jump in responsibility and required 471 knowledge and skills. This request does not add new personnel to the Fire Department. The 472 Lieutenant positions would be filled by promotions of existing firefighters. 473 474 The Fire DepartmentÓs overall request related for new spending related to staffing in the 2021 475 budget is as follows: 476 477 New Full-Time Firefighters (6) $599,280* 478 Funding Fire Department Lieutenant positions (3) $ 30,000 479 Total$629,280 480 *Costs for the new firefighter costs are proposed to be covered by SAFER grant. 481 482 City Manager Recommendation ÎFire Department Staffing 483 2021 Levy Impact: Increase of $30,000 484 485 I am proposing six new full-time firefighters and funding for Fire Department Lieutenant positions 486 in to the 2021 budget subject to receiving the SAFER grant. If the city receives a lesser grant 487 award than what was applied for, the 2021 budget will be adjusted accordingly and only create the 488 full-time positions that can be paid for through grant funds. If no grant funds are received, I would 489 propose that no new firefighter positions are added in 2021, due to financial constraints. 490 491 As mentioned, I have included funding for the three Lieutenant positions in the 2021 budget. As 492 you will recall, I did not include it as part of the 2020 budget due to the limited resources available 493 and other prioritized needs. In my 2020 budget message, I agreed with the rationale behind the 494 need for Lieutenants, primarily because it will create additional supervision and leadership 495 development for the Fire Department. I also mentioned that I would be revisiting funding the 496 Lieutenant positions as part of the 2021 budget. If no new firefighters are created in the 2021 497 budget, I would propose to eliminate funding for the Lieutenant positions in 2021 498 499 Total new levy costs for the Fire DepartmentÓs staffing requests included in City ManagerÓs 2021 500 budget: 501 502 Funding Fire Department Lieutenant positions (3) $ 30,000 503 Total$ 30,000 504 Page 16 of 20 Attachment D-9212020 505 Investment in City Workforce 506 City of Roseville employees administer and provide the programs and services to the residents and 507 businesses of Roseville. Having a well-educated and professional staff is critical in ensuring that 508 RosevilleÓs programs and services are provided in an efficient, courteous, and professional 509 manner. 510 In order to attract and maintain an excellent workforce, Roseville has always strived to provide a 511 competitive wage and benefit package. It is important to track how the City of Roseville 512 compares to other similar municipal organizations. The most recent compensation analysis 513 completed by the city occurred in 2013. At that time, modifications in wages were made to all 514 positions with certain positions receiving additional adjustments due to the misalignment of that 515 positionÓs compensation compared to peers in other communities. While a compensation study 516 will eventually need to be done at some point in the next few years, I am not recommending it for 517 the 2021 budget, due to fiscal constraints. 518 Regardless of a compensation study, the organization needs to ensure that employees are properly 519 compensated for the duties they perform in their jobs. This is done by having a specific job 520 description detailing the duties and responsibilities for each position. Over time, duties evolve 521 with the position to embrace new methods and technologies. In addition, new duties are often 522 added to the employeeÓs work. As a result, the duties of the position can become misaligned from 523 the actual job description. Short of a full compensation study, staff looks at individual position job 524 description on an as-needed basis to ensure the job duties match the job description. Often, due to 525 added duties and responsibilities, a position needs to move to a different step on the cityÓs wage 526 plan. 527 Position Adjustments 528 This year, four positions were determined to be misaligned with RosevilleÓs compensation plan. 529 Police Department Records Technician 530 Police Investigative Analyst 531 Community Development Customer Service Rep./Permit Technician 532 Public Works Environmental Specialist 533 One additional position adjustment is being made to acknowledge a change in the supervision of 534 the Community Service Officers. The current position of Lead CSO will be changed from full- 535 time to ¾ quarter time to reflect a change in supervisory duties for the CSO program that will now 536 the be handled by a sergeant. 537 538 City Manager Recommendation ÎPosition Adjustment 539 2021 Levy Impact: Increase of $7,150 540 I have included the five position adjustments in the 2021 budget. The salary and benefit costs for 541 each adjustment are as follows: 542 543 Police Department Records Technician II $4,400 544 Police Investigative Analyst $8,550 545 Police Department Lead CSO (full-time to ¾ time) ($6,200) Page 17 of 20 Attachment D-9212020 546 Community Development Customer Service Rep./Permit Technician* $2,200 547 Public Works Environmental Specialist to Environmental Manager* $2,700 548 549 Total $11,650 550 Total Levy Impact (Net) $ 6,750 551 552 *Costs for these position adjustments will be paid for with non-levy funds. 553 554 New Position Î Levy Supported 555 I am recommending that an Administrative Department intern be officially incorporated into the 556 2021. Over the years, the Administration Department has been able to host an intern for short 557 periods of time at low cost for special projects by assembling small amounts of unused dollars 558 from the Administration Department budget. Assistant City Manager Rebecca Olson has been 559 successful in recruiting persons of color who are studying government and/or public 560 administration to work for the city on a limited basis. This budget request would officially 561 incorporate the Administration Department Intern position into the city budget at a cost of 562 $15,000. The intern would continue to be a student studying or recently graduated from the field 563 of Public Administration and/or Government with special focus on persons of color. 564 565 City Manager Recommendation Î Add One Administration Department Intern 566 Position 567 2021 Levy Impact: $15,000 568 569 New Positions Î Non-Levy Supported 570 In addition to the new positions mentioned previously, the 2021 budget includes funding for two 571 new positions: a building inspector in Community Development and one License Center 572 Customer Service Representative. Both new positions will be funded from fees collected by the 573 City and not impact the tax levy. 574 575 Building Inspector 576 The Community Development Department is proposing the addition of a building inspector. 577 This additional inspector is primarily driven by the expansion plans at Rosedale Center and 578 their expected timeline for construction commencement in 2021. The following is noted 579 related to this request: 580 Rosedale CenterÓs expansion plans include construction of 565 multi-family apartment 581 units, two hotels with up to 350 rooms, 90,000 SF of office space, and up to an 582 additional 200,000 SF of retail space. While all of these elements will not be added at 583 once, staff could easily envision this project needing a building inspector every day for 584 multiple hours, putting a greater burden on the existing staff to complete inspections 585 elsewhere throughout the City. st 586 Staff has no intention of filling this position on January 1, rather, we will wait to hire 587 the position until we are relatively certain the Rosedale project will start in 2021. 588 In anticipation of hiring an additional Building Inspector, temporary wages for a 589 seasonal employee have been removed from the 2021 budget with the understanding 590 that the additional FTE will be sufficient to cover the added seasonal work. 591 If the Rosedale plans do not proceed in 2021, instead of hiring the FTE, we would hire 592 a seasonal. This scenario would result in a cost-savings. 593 Page 18 of 20 Attachment D-9212020 594 City Manager Recommendation Î Add One New Building Inspector Position 595 2021 Levy Impact: $0 596 597 I have included the additional building inspector in the 2021 budget subject to the guidance 598 mentioned above. The new inspector will not be hired until there is certainty that the Rosedale 599 project is proceeding forward. 600 601 The net cost of adding one new Building Inspector is $57,110 due to the elimination of funding 602 for temporary inspector during the summer months. This will be a non-levy funded position and 603 this new position will be paid from the Community Development Fund. 604 605 License Center Customer Service Representative 606 This past year has been a challenging one for the License Center. Due to the pandemic, the 607 License Center and Passport Office were closed for face to face transactions for about nine weeks. 608 As a result, a significant amount of revenue has been lost due to the closure. Since May 18, the 609 License Center and Passport Office has been operating on an appointment-only basis. The 610 License Center has slowly been building capacity and efficiency to allow for roughly the same 611 amount of transactions it did monthly pre-COVID. Staff has added hours to License Center staff 612 (equivalent to a 0.5 FTE) so that more transaction lanes can be open at the same time, which 613 allows more customers handled per hour. The Passport Office is still down in its normal level of 614 business mostly due to the lack of desire and restrictions on travel but has started picking up in the 615 last month. 616 617 Given the reconfiguration of space and the switch to appointment-only transaction, License Center 618 staff proposed to add 2.75 FTEs to more fully staff all the transaction lanes so that a maximum 619 amount of transactions can be processed per hour. 620 621 The License CenterÓs overall request for new spending related to staffing in the 2021 budget is as 622 follows: 623 624 License Center Representatives (2.75 FTEs) $200,056* 625 626 Total$200,056 627 628 City Manager Recommendation Î Add for 1.5 FTE License Center Representative 629 Positions 630 2021 Levy Impact: $0 631 632 Given the new model that the License Center must operate for the foreseeable future, we will need 633 to make sure that we are staffing properly to ensure we can process the maximum amount of 634 transaction hourly. This requires having enough staff to fully keep all transaction lanes open 635 during business hours. Adding 2.75 FTEs would allow the License Center to fully utilize all lanes 636 during the business hours. However, given the uncertainty of future potential shutdowns and 637 other possible disruptions to the License Center business model, I am only comfortable in creating 638 one new FTE License Center Representative Position continuing the already implemented 0.5 639 FTE increase in hours at this time. These additions will position us well moving forward and help 640 us increase License Center revenue and make the overall customer experience more pleasant. The Page 19 of 20 Attachment D-9212020 641 appointment model has proven to be extremely popular with customers and employees and at this 642 point, it is something that staff would like to continue to have in place. 643 644 The total cost of adding 1 FTEs to the License Center Representative is $98,000. This will be a 645 non-levy funded position and this new position will be paid from the License Center Fund. Page 20 of 20 Attachment D-9212020 City of Roseville Attachment C Budget Summary by Function 2018201920202021$$% ActualActualBudgetBudgetIncreaseIncr. City Council$ 227,159$ 230,376$ 240,300$ 268,023$ 11.5%27,723 Human Rights Commission 2,888 - - - 0.0%- Ethics Commission 410 1,500 1,000 1,000 0.0%- Administration 787,576 812,807 951,740 1,038,620 9.1%86,880 Elections 84,448 57,821 75,410 78,877 4.6%3,467 Legal 362,071 361,710 381,005 393,435 3.3%12,430 Nuisance Code Enforcement 118,553 118,629 135,450 (135,450)- 0.0% Finance Department 632,954 639,965 734,330 744,245 1.4%9,915 Central Services 43,325 50,420 59,600 59,000 -1.0%(600) General Insurance 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 0.0%- Contingency 30,950 - - - 0.0%- General Government2,360,335$ $ 2,343,228$ 2,648,835$ 2,653,200$ 0.2%4,365 Police Administration 1,009,942 1,033,343 1,056,145 1,069,695 1.3%13,550 Police Patrol Operations 5,361,044 5,363,898 5,629,440 6,003,325 6.6%373,885 Police Investigations 913,152 791,152 1,385,405 1,280,870 -7.5%(104,535) Community Services 187,737 177,207 197,055 181,255 -8.0%(15,800) Police7,471,875$ $ 7,365,600$ 8,268,045$ 8,535,145$ 3.2%267,100 Fire Administration 468,677 454,584 468,280 476,180 1.7%7,900 Fire Fighting 1,795,691 1,907,970 2,236,830 2,935,260 31.2%698,430 Fire Emergency Management 2,677 1,689 8,450 8,450 0.0%- Fire Training 30,298 27,358 27,000 27,000 0.0%- Fire2,297,343$ $ 2,391,601$ 2,740,560$ 3,446,890$ 25.8%706,330 Fire Relief Association 229,050 238,755 223,000 239,000 7.2%16,000 Fire Relief229,050$ $ 238,755$ 223,000$ 239,000$ 7.2%16,000 Public Works Administration 869,257 879,644 988,245 1,017,985 3.0%29,740 Street Department 1,164,244 1,208,702 1,320,695 1,101,985 -16.6%(218,710) Street Lighting 204,036 166,278 184,000 184,000 0.0%- Building Maintenance 393,126 360,751 414,150 415,150 0.2%1,000 Central Garage 198,024 198,246 198,430 210,130 5.9%11,700 Public Works2,828,687$ $ 2,813,621$ 3,105,520$ 2,929,250$ -5.7%(176,270) General Fund$ 15,187,290$ 15,152,805$ 16,985,960$ 17,803,485$ 4.8%817,525 Parks & Recreation Administration607,465 598,048 637,280 641,750 0.7%4,470 Recreation Fee Activities 1,279,593 1,292,319 1,505,830 1,547,455 2.8%41,625 Recreation Non-fee Activities 115,136 115,399 162,405 165,505 1.9%3,100 Recreation Nature Center 71,526 73,022 70,275 72,840 3.6%2,565 Recreation Activity Center 102,121 106,268 117,640 123,280 4.8%5,640 Skating Center 1,162,269 1,192,260 1,221,280 1,237,570 1.3%16,290 Parks & Recreation Fund$ 3,338,111$ 3,377,316$ 3,714,710$ 3,788,400$ 2.0%73,690 Planning 442,917 350,303 641,940 640,560 -0.2%(1,380) Housing & Econ. Development 89,680 - - - 0.0%- GIS 46,048 48,076 38,150 38,630 1.3%480 Code Enforcement 602,298 648,878 872,610 881,845 1.1%9,235 Neighborhood Enhancement 77,409 59,912 8,150 49,820 511.3%41,670 Nuisance Code Enforcement 166,320- 0.0%166,320 Rental Licensing 102,424 - - - 0.0%- Community Development Fund$ 1,107,1691,360,776$ $ 1,560,850$ 1,777,175$ 13.9%216,325 Attachment D-9212020 City of Roseville Attachment C Budget Summary by Function 2018201920202021$$% ActualActualBudgetBudgetIncreaseIncr. EDA 317,706 423,660 437,950 433,795 -0.9%(4,155) Information Technology 2,361,178 2,514,496 3,047,250 3,342,506 9.7%295,256 Communications 493,131 457,802 458,310 472,161 3.0%13,851 License Center 2,236,202 1,990,842 2,035,490 2,094,750 2.9%59,260 Engineering Services 305,808 263,169 264,240 273,600 3.5%9,360 Lawful Gambling 191,630 127,485 107,580 108,249 0.6%669 Parks Maintenance 1,259,480 1,154,960 1,396,080 1,420,030 1.7%23,950 Special Purpose Operating Funds$ 7,165,136$ 6,932,414$ 7,746,900$ 8,145,091$ 5.1%398,191 Vehicle & Equipment Replacement1,143,371 1,024,214 2,095,860 1,116,235 -46.7%(979,625) Building Replacement 98,606 618,400 5,473,400 5,178,900 -5.4%(294,500) Park Improvements 76,645 556,500 1,215,000 1,480,000 21.8%265,000 Pathway Maintenance 128,915 719,063 350,000 200,000 -42.9%(150,000) Street Light Replacement 15,684 36,911 65,000 40,000 -38.5%(25,000) Boulevard Landscaping 66,867 99,063 71,910 71,910 0.0%- Capital Replacement Funds$ 3,054,1511,530,088$ $ 9,271,170$ 8,087,045$ (1,184,125)-12.8% Special Assessment Construction2,594,353 1,364,408 1,200,000 1,450,000 20.8%250,000 MSA Construction - 854,899 908,000 1,728,000 90.3%820,000 Capital Improvement Funds$ 2,219,3072,594,353$ 2,108,000$ 3,178,000$ 1,070,000$ 50.8% G.O. Improvement Bonds- - - - 0.0% G.O. Facility Bonds 939,519 765,000 - - 0.0%- Equipment Certificates 640,136 - - - 0.0%- 2011 Bonds 796,931 835,000 835,000 836,829 0.2%1,829 2012 Bonds 1,356,100 1,375,000 1,375,000 1,442,385 4.9%67,385 Debt Service Funds$ 3,732,686$ 2,975,000$ 2,210,000$ 2,279,214$ 3.1%69,214 TIF District Funds$ 485,642$ 1,045,133$ 1,101,000$ 876,000$ -20.4%(225,000) Sanitary Sewer 4,422,861 5,478,245 6,225,970 6,048,530 -2.8%(177,440) Water 6,277,099 7,891,031 7,675,480 7,442,915 -3.0%(232,565) Stormwater 1,224,259 1,519,214 2,790,420 2,566,705 -8.0%(223,715) Solid Waste Recycling 570,952 662,852 643,020 662,785 3.1%19,765 Golf Course 472,308 454,624 445,875 450,795 1.1%4,920 Enterprise Funds$ 16,005,96612,967,479$ $ 17,780,765$ 17,171,730$ -3.4%(609,035) Safety & Loss Control 7,955 12,129 12,300 12,300 0.0%- MN Islamic Cem. (Roseville Luth.) 6,000 2,000- (2,000)- 0.0% Other Funds$ 13,955$ 12,129$ 14,300$ 12,300$ -14.0%(2,000) Attachment D-9212020 City of Roseville Attachment C Budget Summary by Function 2018201920202021$$% ActualActualBudgetBudgetIncreaseIncr. Total Budget by Funding Source Total Budget: Tax-Supported$ 29,593,13630,003,187$ 37,825,170$ 38,170,680$ 0.9%345,510 Total Budget: Fee-Supported 18,372,329 22,288,254 24,668,485 24,947,760 1.1%279,275 $ 48,375,516$ 51,881,390$ 62,493,655$ 63,118,440$ 1.0%624,785 Total Budget by Major Category Personnel Services$ 21,345,216$ 21,519,908$ 24,314,970$ 25,756,769 1,441,7995.9% Supplies & Materials 1,345,654 1,453,213 1,535,720 1,530,675 -0.3%(5,045) Other Services & Charges 21,457,610 20,703,110 21,141,505 21,231,736 0.4%90,231 Capital Outlay: Budgets 178,476 3,885,663 5,102,200 5,134,125 0.6%31,925 Capital Outlay: CIP Only 4,057,574 4,319,496 10,399,260 9,465,135 -9.0%(934,125) $ 48,384,530$ 51,881,390$ 62,493,655$ 63,118,440$ 1.0%624,785 Attachment D-9212020 City of Roseville Budget Detail by Function: Tax Supported 2018201920202021$$% ActualActualBudgetBudgetIncreaseIncr. City Council Personnel Services$ 46,143$ 48,048$ 49,22049,220$-0.0% Supplies & Materials- - - --0.0% Other Services & Charges 181,016 182,328 191,080218,803 14.5%27,723 Capital Outlay- - - --0.0% $ 227,159$ 230,376$ 240,300$ 268,023$ 11.5%27,723 Human Rights Commission Personnel Services$ -$-$ -$ -$-0.0% Supplies & Materials- - - --0.0% Other Services & Charges 2,888- - --0.0% Capital Outlay- - - --0.0% $ 2,888$-$ -$ -$-0.0% Ethics Commission Personnel Services$ -$-$ -$ -$-0.0% Supplies & Materials- - - --0.0% Other Services & Charges 410 1,500 1,0001,000-0.0% Capital Outlay- - - --0.0% $ 410$ 1,500$ 1,000$1,000$-0.0% Administration Personnel Services$ 699,244$ 689,330$ 767,330$ 893,570$ 126,24016.5% Supplies & Materials 2,077 5,892 1,5003,000 100.0%1,500 Other Services & Charges 86,255 117,585 182,910142,050 -22.3%(40,860) Capital Outlay- - - --0.0% $ 787,576$ 812,807$ 951,740$ 1,038,620$ 86,8809.1% Nuisance Code Enforcement Personnel Services$ 118,048$ 118,629$ 128,350$ (128,350)-$ -100.0% Supplies & Materials- - 2,075 (2,075)--100.0% Other Services & Charges 505-5,025 (5,025)--100.0% Capital Outlay- - - --0.0% moved to CD fund in 2020)$ 118,553$ 118,629$ 135,450$ (135,450)-$ -100.0% Elections Personnel Services$ 5,742$ 5,816$ 6,070$6,070$-0.0% Supplies & Materials- - - --0.0% Other Services & Charges 78,706 52,005 69,34072,807 5.0%3,467 Capital Outlay- - - --0.0% $ 84,448$ 57,821$ 75,410$78,877$ 4.6%3,467 Legal Personnel Services$ -$-$ -$ -$-0.0% Supplies & Materials- - - --0.0% Other Services & Charges 362,071 361,710 381,005393,435 12,4303.3% Capital Outlay- - - --0.0% $ 362,071$ 361,710$ 381,005$ 393,435$ 12,4303.3% Finance Personnel Services$ 572,479$ 559,723$ 660,150$ 666,540$ 1.0%6,390 Supplies & Materials 1,610 3,517 3,6003,600-0.0% Other Services & Charges 58,865 76,725 70,58074,105 5.0%3,525 Capital Outlay- - - --0.0% $ 632,954$ 639,965$ 734,330$ 744,245$ 1.4%9,915 Attachment D-9212020 City of Roseville Budget Detail by Function: Tax Supported 2018201920202021$$% ActualActualBudgetBudgetIncreaseIncr. Central Services Personnel Services$ -$-$ -$ -$-0.0% Supplies & Materials 22,582 25,041 27,10027,000(100)-0.4% Other Services & Charges 20,743 25,379 32,50032,000(500)-1.5% Capital Outlay- - - --0.0% $ 43,325$ 50,420$ 59,600$59,000$ -1.0%(600) General Insurance Personnel Services$ -$-$ -$ -$-0.0% Supplies & Materials- - - --0.0% Other Services & Charges 70,000 70,000 70,00070,000-0.0% Capital Outlay- - - --0.0% $ 70,000$ 70,000$ 70,000$70,000$-0.0% Police Administration Personnel Services$ 868,489$ 911,713$ 895,070$ 903,420$ 0.9%8,350 Supplies & Materials 30,493 16,037 18,65018,950 3001.6% Other Services & Charges 110,960 105,593 142,425147,325 4,9003.4% Capital Outlay- - - --0.0% $ 1,009,942$ 1,033,343$ 1,056,145$ 1,069,695$ 13,5501.3% Police Patrol Personnel Services$ 4,555,557$ 4,677,687$ 4,928,490 5,236,280$ 307,7906.2% Supplies & Materials 193,560 201,946 233,600233,600-0.0% Other Services & Charges 611,927 484,265 467,350533,445 14.1%66,095 Capital Outlay- - - --0.0% $ 5,361,044$ 5,363,898$ 5,629,440$ 6,003,325$ 373,8856.6% Police Investigations Personnel Services$ 870,475$ 740,786$ 1,327,580$ 1,219,720$ (107,860)-8.1% Supplies & Materials 23,677 27,281 34,75036,000 3.6%1,250 Other Services & Charges 19,000 23,085 23,07525,150 9.0%2,075 Capital Outlay- - - --0.0% $ 913,152$ 791,152$ 1,385,405$ 1,280,870$ (104,535)-7.5% Police Community Services Personnel Services$ 177,373$ 166,529$ 175,470$ 159,670$ (15,800)-9.0% Supplies & Materials 4,199 5,366 8,8508,850-0.0% Other Services & Charges 6,165 5,312 12,73512,735-0.0% Capital Outlay- - - --0.0% $ 187,737$ 177,207$ 197,055$ 181,255$ (15,800)-8.0% Fire Administration Personnel Services$ 396,839$ 401,832$ 416,680$ 423,080$ 1.5%6,400 Supplies & Materials 14,303 5,824 2,6004,100 57.7%1,500 Other Services & Charges 57,535 46,928 49,00049,000-0.0% Capital Outlay- - - --0.0% $ 468,677$ 454,584$ 468,280$ 476,180$ 1.7%7,900 Fire Operation Personnel Services$ 1,603,074$ 1,702,741$ 2,043,830$ 2,730,760$ 686,93033.6% Supplies & Materials 84,772 72,220 76,00081,500 7.2%5,500 Other Services & Charges 107,845 133,009 117,000123,000 6,0005.1% Capital Outlay- - - --0.0% $ 1,795,691$ 1,907,970$ 2,236,830$ 2,935,260$ 698,43031.2% Attachment D-9212020 City of Roseville Budget Detail by Function: Tax Supported 2018201920202021$$% ActualActualBudgetBudgetIncreaseIncr. Fire Training Personnel Services$ -$-$ -$ -$-0.0% Supplies & Materials 44 - --0.0% Other Services & Charges 30,294 27,354 27,00027,000-0.0% Capital Outlay- - - --0.0% $ 30,298$ 27,358$ 27,000$27,000$-0.0% Fire Emergency Mgmt. Personnel Services$ -$-$ -$ -$-0.0% Supplies & Materials 535- - --0.0% Other Services & Charges 2,142 1,689 8,4508,450-0.0% Capital Outlay- - - --0.0% $ 2,677$ 1,689$ 8,450$8,450$-0.0% Fire Relief Personnel Services$ -$-$ -$ -$-0.0% Supplies & Materials- - - --0.0% Other Services & Charges 229,050 238,755 223,000239,000 16,0007.2% Capital Outlay- - - --0.0% $ 229,050$ 238,755$ 223,000$ 239,000$ 16,0007.2% PW Administration Personnel Services$ 823,804$ 838,284$ 923,995$ 949,935$ 25,9402.8% Supplies & Materials 10,054 8,703 9,75010,950 12.3%1,200 Other Services & Charges 35,399 32,657 54,50057,100 4.8%2,600 Capital Outlay- - - --0.0% $ 869,257$ 879,644$ 988,245$ 1,017,985$ 29,7403.0% Streets Personnel Services$ 612,405$ 628,871$ 639,720$ 656,610$ 16,8902.6% Supplies & Materials 265,966 286,867 306,600318,000 11,4003.7% Other Services & Charges 285,873 292,964 374,375127,375 (247,000)-66.0% Capital Outlay- - - --0.0% $ 1,164,244$ 1,208,702$ 1,320,695$ 1,101,985$ (218,710)-16.6% Central Garage Personnel Services$ 188,386$ 183,925$ 192,830$ 204,430$ 11,6006.0% Supplies & Materials 4,180 10,520 4,4004,400-0.0% Other Services & Charges 5,458 3,801 1,2001,300 1008.3% Capital Outlay- - - --0.0% $ 198,024$ 198,246$ 198,430$ 210,130$ 11,7005.9% Building Maintenance Personnel Services$ -$-$ -$ -$-0.0% Supplies & Materials 15,869 23,511 19,00021,000 10.5%2,000 Other Services & Charges 377,257 337,240 395,150394,150 -0.3%(1,000) Capital Outlay- - - --0.0% $ 393,126$ 360,751$ 414,150$ 415,150$ 1,0000.2% Street Lighting Personnel Services$ -$-$ -$ -$-0.0% Supplies & Materials- - - --0.0% Other Services & Charges 204,036 166,278 184,000184,000-0.0% Capital Outlay- - - --0.0% $ 204,036$ 166,278$ 184,000$ 184,000$-0.0% Attachment D-9212020 City of Roseville Budget Detail by Function: Tax Supported 2018201920202021$$% ActualActualBudgetBudgetIncreaseIncr. Contingency Personnel Services$ -$-$ -$ -$-0.0% Supplies & Materials- - - --0.0% Other Services & Charges 30,950- - --0.0% Capital Outlay- - - --0.0% $ 30,950$-$ -$ -$-0.0% Total General Fund Personnel Services$ 11,538,058$ 11,673,914$ 13,154,785$ 14,099,305$ 944,5207% Supplies & Materials 673,881 692,729 748,475770,950 22,4753% Other Services & Charges 2,975,351 2,786,162 3,082,700 2,933,230 (149,470)-5% Capital Outlay- - - --0% $ 15,187,290$ 15,152,805$ 16,985,960$ 17,803,485$ 817,5255% Recreation Administration Personnel Services$ 556,030$ 527,948$ 537,315$ 551,385$ 14,0702.6% Supplies & Materials 3,923 5,507 8,0006,000(2,000) -25.0% Other Services & Charges 47,512 64,593 91,96584,365 -8.3%(7,600) Capital Outlay- - - --0.0% $ 607,465$ 598,048$ 637,280$ 641,750$ 0.7%4,470 Recreation Fee Programs Personnel Services$ 790,815$ 804,510$ 920,155$ 951,165$ 31,0103.4% Supplies & Materials 51,097 69,550 77,75580,510 3.5%2,755 Other Services & Charges 437,681 418,259 507,920515,780 7,8601.5% Capital Outlay- - - --0.0% $ 1,279,593$ 1,292,319$ 1,505,830$ 1,547,455$ 41,6252.8% Recreation Non-Fee Programs Personnel Services$ 37,434$ 37,744$ 58,935$58,935$-0.0% Supplies & Materials 9,138 13,542 26,55026,800 2500.9% Other Services & Charges 68,564 64,113 76,92079,770 3.7%2,850 Capital Outlay- - - --0.0% $ 115,136$ 115,399$ 162,405$ 165,505$ 1.9%3,100 Recreation Activity Center Personnel Services$ 8,884$ 6,670$ 12,380$12,380$-0.0% Supplies & Materials 32543 2,850 2,850-0.0% Other Services & Charges 92,912 99,555 102,410108,050 5,6405.5% Capital Outlay- - - --0.0% $ 102,121$ 106,268$ 117,640$ 123,280$ 4.8%5,640 Recreation Nature Center Personnel Services$ 30,121$ 29,502$ 27,990$27,990$-0.0% Supplies & Materials 8,414 9,550 9,6009,600-0.0% Other Services & Charges 32,991 33,970 32,68535,250 7.8%2,565 Capital Outlay- - - --0.0% $ 71,526$ 73,022$ 70,275$72,840$ 3.6%2,565 Skating Center Personnel Services$ 710,739$ 734,882$ 762,340$ 780,430$ 18,0902.4% Supplies & Materials 69,336 65,731 73,50071,700 -2.4%(1,800) Other Services & Charges 382,194 391,647 385,440385,440-0.0% Capital Outlay- - - --0.0% $ 1,162,269$ 1,192,260$ 1,221,280$ 1,237,570$ 16,2901.3% Attachment D-9212020 City of Roseville Budget Detail by Function: Tax Supported 2018201920202021$$% ActualActualBudgetBudgetIncreaseIncr. Parks & Recreation Maintenance Personnel Services$ 893,836$ 883,870$ 989,610$ 1,007,830$ 18,2201.8% Supplies & Materials 143,480 130,177 129,500134,500 5,0003.9% Other Services & Charges 222,165 140,913 276,970277,700 7300.3% Capital Outlay- - - --0.0% $ 1,259,480$ 1,154,960$ 1,396,080$ 1,420,030$ 23,9501.7% Total Parks & Recreation Fund Personnel Services$ 3,027,859$ 3,025,126$ 3,308,725$ 3,390,115$ 81,3902.5% Supplies & Materials 285,713 294,100 327,755331,960 4,2051.3% Other Services & Charges 1,284,019 1,213,050 1,474,310 1,486,355 12,0450.8% Capital Outlay- - - --0.0% $ 4,597,591$ 4,532,276$ 5,110,790$ 5,208,430$ 97,6401.9% Information Technology Fund Personnel Services$ 1,847,779$ 2,000,904$ 2,529,260$ 2,555,190$ 25,9301.0% Supplies & Materials 6,917 3,631 6,9004,500(2,400) -34.8% Other Services & Charges 470,212 194,099 511,090782,816 271,72653.2% Capital Outlay 36,270 315,862 - --0.0% $ 2,361,178$ 2,514,496$ 3,047,250$ 3,342,506$ 295,2569.7% Blvd Landscaping Fund Personnel Services$ 6,911-$ $ 6,910$6,910$-0.0% Supplies & Materials- 38,257 43,00022,000 -(21,000)48.8% Other Services & Charges 66,867 36,515 22,00043,000 95.5%21,000 Capital Outlay- 17,380 - --0.0% $ 66,867$ 99,063$ 71,910$71,910$-0.0% Debt Service Fund OSC - Debt: #27 829,550 765,000 - --0.0% OSC - Debt: #28 640,136- - --0.0% OSC - Debt: #29 109,969- - --0.0% OSC - Debt: #31 796,931 835,000 835,000836,829 1,8290.2% OSC - Debt: #32 1,356,100 1,375,000 1,375,000 1,442,385 67,3854.9% OSC - Debt: #33 (TIF)- - - --0.0% $ 3,732,686$ 2,975,000$ 2,210,000$ 2,279,214$ 69,2143.1% Attachment D-9212020 City of Roseville Budget Detail by Function: Tax Supported 2018201920202021$$% ActualActualBudgetBudgetIncreaseIncr. Total: All Tax-Supported Funds Personnel Services$ 16,706,85516,413,696$ 18,999,680$ 20,051,520$ 1,051,840$ 5.5% Supplies & Materials 1,028,717966,511 1,126,130 1,129,410 3,2800.3% Other Services & Charges 7,204,8268,529,136 7,300,100 7,524,615 224,5153.1% Capital Outlay: Ops 36,270 333,242 - --0.0% Total: Operations$ 25,945,612$ 25,273,640$ 27,425,910$ 28,705,545$ 1,279,6354.7% Vehicles & Equipment$ 1,143,371$ 1,024,214$ 2,095,860$ 1,116,235$ (979,625)-46.7% General Facilities 98,606 618,400 5,473,400 5,178,900 (294,500)-5.4% Pathways & Parking Lots 128,915 719,063 350,000200,000 (150,000)-42.9% Street Lighting 15,684 36,911 65,00040,000(25,000) -38.5% Park Improvements 76,645 556,500 1,215,000 1,480,000 265,00021.8% Pavement Management 2,594,353 1,364,408 1,200,000 1,450,000 250,00020.8% Total: Capital$ 4,057,574$ 4,319,496$ 10,399,260$ 9,465,135$ (934,125)-9.0% Total: Combined$ 30,003,187$ 29,593,136$ 37,825,170$ 38,170,680 345,5100.9% Attachment D-9212020 City of Roseville Attachment E Budget Detail by Function: Fee Supported 20172018201920202021$$% ActualActualActualBudgetBudgetIncreaseIncr. CD - Planning Personnel Services$ 331,609$ 341,848$ 291,094$ 507,540$ 509,860$ 2,3200.5% Supplies & Materials 383 1,116 1,224 4,500 2,500 -44.4%(2,000) Other Services & Charges 189,239 99,953 57,985 129,400 124,900 -3.5%(4,500) Capital Outlay - - 500- 3,300 2,800560.0% $ 521,231$ 442,917$ 350,303$ 641,940$ 640,560$ -0.2%(1,380) CD - Housing & Econ Development Personnel Services$ 88,725-$ $ -$ -$ -$ -0.0% Supplies & Materials - - - - - -0.0% Other Services & Charges/Other - 955 - - - -0.0% Capital Outlay - - - - - -0.0% $ 89,680-$ $ -$ -$ -$ -0.0% CD - Code Enforcement Personnel Services$ 393,753$ 392,256$ 399,656$ 602,910$ 640,970$ 3 8,0606.3% Supplies & Materials 7,410 6,419 7,431 15,500 10,800 -30.3%(4,700) Other Services & Charges 229,007 199,276 236,531 227,700 224,800 -1.3%(2,900) Capital Outlay 20,613 4,347 5,260 26,500 (21,225)5,275 -80.1% $ 602,298$ 648,878$ 872,610$ 881,8459,235 $ 650,783$ 1.1% CD-Nuisance Code Enforcement Personnel Services$ -$ -$ -$ 160,200-$ $ 160,2000.0% Supplies & Materials - - - 2,075- 2,0750.0% Other Services & Charges - - - 4,045- 4,0450.0% Capital Outlay - - - - - -0.0% $ -$ -$ -$ 166,320-$ $ 166,3200.0% CD - GIS Personnel Services$ 76,020$ 41,593$ 43,605$ 33,050$ 33,530$ 4801.5% Supplies & Materials - 472 - - - -0.0% Other Services & Charges 3,981 3,983 4,471 5,100 5,100 -0.0% Capital Outlay - - - - - -0.0% $ 80,001$ 46,048$ 48,076$ 38,150$ 38,630$ 4801.3% CD - Neighborhood Enhancement Personnel Services$ 83,212$ 75,893$ 55,559$ 42,670-$ $ 4 2,6700.0% Supplies & Materials 39 - 1,450- (1,000)450 -69.0% Other Services & Charges 1,437 1,516 3,853 6,700 6,700 -0.0% 500- - - Capital Outlay - -0.0% $ 84,688$ 77,409$ 59,912$ 8,150$ 49,820$ 4 1,670511.3% CD - Rental Licensing Personnel Services$ 112,913$ 102,424$ -$ -$ -$ -0.0% Supplies & Materials 1,444 - - - - -0.0% Other Services & Charges 10 - - - - -0.0% Capital Outlay - - -- - -0.0% $ 114,367$ 102,424$ -$ -$ -$ -0.0% Community Development Fund Personnel Services$ 997,507$ 1,042,740$ 789,914$ 1,143,500$ 1,387,230$ 2 43,73021.3% Supplies & Materials 9,276 8,007 8,655 21,450 15,825 -26.2%(5,625) Other Services & Charges 423,674 305,683 302,840 368,900 365,545 -0.9%(3,355) Capital Outlay 20,613 4,347 5,760 27,000 (18,425)8,575 -68.2% $ 1,451,070$ 1,360,776$ 1,107,169$ 1,560,850$ 1,777,175$ 2 16,32513.9% EDA Fund Personnel Services$ 197,226$ 205,340$ 214,760$ 227,900$ 188,170$ -17.4%(39,730) 200 - -- Supplies & Materials 248 - 0.0% Other Services & Charges 11,819 112,366 207,700 210,050 245,625 3 5,57516.9% Capital Outlay - 1,000- - - -0.0% $ 209,293$ 317,706$ 423,660$ 437,950$ 433,795$ -0.9%(4,155) Attachment D-9212020 City of Roseville Attachment E Budget Detail by Function: Fee Supported 20172018201920202021$$% ActualActualActualBudgetBudgetIncreaseIncr. Communications Fund Personnel Services$ 241,604235,477$ 247,321$ 234,260$ 236,030$ $ 1,7700.8% Supplies & Materials 6,9041,789 2,561 2,000 2,000 -0.0% Other Services & Charges 244,623224,955 207,920 222,050 234,131 12,0815.4% Capital Outlay - - - - - -0.0% $ 462,221$ 493,131$ 457,802$ 458,310$ 472,161$ 1 3,8513.0% License Center Fund Personnel Services$ 1,290,559$ 1,346,690$ 1,395,504$ 1,437,540$ 1,577,550$ 1 40,0109.7% Supplies & Materials 19,501 25,865 33,132 24,000 24,000 -0.0% Other Services & Charges 594,567 803,184 506,401 462,750 483,150 2 0,4004.4% Capital Outlay 60,463- 55,805 111,200 (101,150)10,050 -91.0% $ 1,904,627$ 2,236,202$ 1,990,842$ 2,035,490$ 2,094,750$ 5 9,2602.9% Engineering Services Fund Personnel Services$ 205,536$ 221,351$ 225,653$ 244,040$ 246,300$ 2 ,2600.9% Supplies & Materials 260 883 2,139 1,500 2,700 1 ,20080.0% Other Services & Charges 30,996 83,574 22,802 18,700 24,600 5 ,90031.6% Capital Outlay 23,382 12,575- - - -0.0% $ 260,174$ 305,808$ 263,169$ 264,240$ 273,600$ 9,3603.5% Lawful Gambling Fund Personnel Services$ 3,405$ 34,630$ 35,485$ 7,580$ 33,249$ 25,669338.6% Supplies & Materials - - - - - -0.0% Other Services & Charges 142,452 157,000 92,000 100,000 75,000 -25.0%(25,000) Capital Outlay - - - - - -0.0% $ 145,857$ 191,630$ 127,485$ 107,580$ 108,249$ 6 690.6% MSA Fund Personnel Services$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -0.0% Supplies & Materials - - - - - -0.0% Other Services & Charges - - - - - -0.0% Capital Outlay 9,014- 854,899 908,000 1,728,000 820,00090.3% $ 9,014-$ $ 854,899$ 908,000$ 1,728,000$ 820,00090.3% Water Fund Personnel Services$ 614,042$ 613,073$ 618,322$ 698,280$ 704,190 $ 0.8%5,910 Supplies & Materials 155,373 193,643 221,460 162,200 162,800 6 000.4% Other Services & Charges 5,860,974 5,470,383 5,474,416 5,726,000 5,840,925 114,9252.0% Capital Outlay - 1,576,833- 1,089,000 735,000 (354,000)-32.5% $ 6,630,389$ 6,277,099$ 7,891,031$ 7,675,480$ 7,442,915$ (232,565)-3.0% Attachment D-9212020 City of Roseville Attachment E Budget Detail by Function: Fee Supported 20172018201920202021$$% ActualActualActualBudgetBudgetIncreaseIncr. Sanitary Sewer Fund Personnel Services$ 512,889476,565$ 530,583$ 512,420$ 508,830$ (3,590)$ -0.7% Supplies & Materials 41,17054,711 37,327 45,400 44,700 (700) -1.5% Other Services & Charges 3,868,8023,713,435 4,143,782 4,147,150 4,035,000 (112,150) -2.7% Capital Outlay - 766,553- 1,521,000 1,460,000 (61,000)-4.0% $ 4,244,711$ 4,422,861$ 5,478,245$ 6,225,970$ 6,048,530$ (177,440)-2.8% Stormwater Fund Personnel Services$ 359,723$ 394,082$ 412,007$ 451,780$ 463,065$ 1 1,2852.5% Supplies & Materials 50,439 52,628 67,431 88,340 88,340 -0.0% Other Services & Charges 745,229 777,549 767,829 804,300 822,800 1 8,5002.3% Capital Outlay - 271,947- 1,446,000 1,192,500 (253,500)-17.5% $ 1,155,391$ 1,224,259$ 1,519,214$ 2,790,420$ 2,566,705$ (223,715)-8.0% Recycling Fund Personnel Services$ 30,161$ 32,048$ 43,751$ 39,790$ 40,975$ 1 ,1853.0% Supplies & Materials 711 420 732 3,000 (3,000)- -100.0% Other Services & Charges 488,421 538,484 617,461 600,230 621,810 2 1,5803.6% Capital Outlay - 908- - - -0.0% $ 519,293$ 570,952$ 662,852$ 643,020$ 662,785$ 19,7653.1% Golf Course Fund Personnel Services$ 247,353$ 287,074$ 299,753$ 318,200$ 319,660$ 1,4600.5% Supplies & Materials 38,043 49,623 50,859 61,700 60,900 -1.3%(800) Other Services & Charges 63,604 67,229 97,871 65,975 70,235 4,2606.5% Capital Outlay 729,563 68,382 6,141 - - -0.0% $ 1,078,563$ 472,308$ 454,624$ 445,875$ 450,795$ 4 ,9201.1% Roseville Cemetary Fund Personnel Services$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -0.0% Supplies & Materials - - - - - -0.0% Other Services & Charges 6,000- 2,000- (2,000)- -100.0% Capital Outlay - - - - - -0.0% $ 6,000-$ $ 2,000-$ $ (2,000)-$ -100.0% TIF Fund Personnel Services$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%- Supplies & Materials - - - - - -0.0% Other Services & Charges 1,019,418 485,642 1,045,133 1,101,000 876,000 (225,000)-20.4% Capital Outlay - - - - - -0.0% $ 1,019,418$ 485,642$ 1,045,133$ 1,101,000$ 876,000$ (225,000)-20.4% Attachment D-9212020 City of Roseville Attachment E Budget Detail by Function: Fee Supported 20172018201920202021$$% ActualActualActualBudgetBudgetIncreaseIncr. Safety & Loss Control Personnel Services$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -0.0% Supplies & Materials - - - - - -0.0% Other Services & Charges 19,208 7,955 12,129 12,300 12,300 -0.0% Capital Outlay - - - - - -0.0% $ 19,208$ 7,955$ 12,129$ 12,300$ 12,300$ -0.0% Total: All Non Tax-Supported Funds Personnel Services$ 4,657,554$ 4,931,521$ 4,813,053$ 5,315,290$ 5,705,249$ 3 89,9597.3% Supplies & Materials 330,351 379,143 424,496 409,590 401,265 -2.0%(8,325) Other Services & Charges 13,338,751 12,928,474 13,498,284 13,841,405 13,707,121 (134,284)-1.0% Capital Outlay 773,558 142,206 3,552,421 5,102,200 5,134,125 3 1,9250.6% Total: Operations$ 19,100,214$ 18,381,343$ 24,668,48522,288,254$ 24,947,760$ $ 279,2751.1% Attachment D-9212020 City of Roseville Attachment F 2021 Tax-Supported Operating Budget & Tax Levy Reconciliation (excludes EDA Activity) Operating BudgetTax Levy ExpendituresRevenues Notes 2020 Adopted Budget / Levy$ 22,641,77027,425,910$ 2021 Proposed Subtractions S1: Reduced costs for one-time spending- - See Appendix S1 S2: Reduced costs for supplies & materials(8,375) (8,375) See Appendix S2 S3: Reduced costs for contractual services, other charges(301,985) (301,985) See Appendix S3 S4: Reduced costs for labor: position reductions(19,100) (19,100) See Appendix S4 S5: Reduced costs for labor: health insurance & benefits- - S6: Reduced costs for debt service- - S7: Reduced levy due to increased non-tax revenues- (671,330) General, Park & Rec, IT S8: Reduced contributions to capital reserve funds- - Total Subtractions(329,460)$ (1,000,790)$ 2021 Proposed Additions A1: Increased costs for one-time spending- - See Appendix A1 A2: Increased costs for supplies & materials32,655 32,655 See Appendix A2 A3: Increased costs for contractual services, other charges436,286 436,286 See Appendix A3 A4: Increased costs for labor: cost-of-living adjustment319,700 319,700 A5: Increased costs for labor: wage steps (net)(93,380) (93,380) A6: Increased costs for labor: new positions/classifications872,230 872,230 See Appendix A6 A7: Increased costs for labor: health insurance & benefits (net)(27,610) (27,610) A8: Increased costs for debt service69,214 62,614 A9: Increased contributions to capital replacement funds- - A10: Communications levy- 50,000 A11: Increased levy due to decline of non-tax revenues- 245,384 Total Additions1,609,095$ 1,897,879$ Proposed for 2021 (Before Tax Relief Measures)$ 23,538,85928,705,545$ $ Change1,279,635 897,089 % Change4.7%4.0% Less Use of Reserves for Property Tax Relief$ - Note: Per Cash Reserve Policy, reserves may be used for tax relief if over target levels, or they may be allocated for other funds Proposed for 2021 (After Tax Relief)$ 23,538,85928,705,545$ $ Change1,279,635 897,089 % Change4.7%4.0% Attachment D-9212020 City of Roseville Reduced Costs for One-Time Spending Appendix S1 Professional TelephoneServices TrainingOtherTotalComments City Council$ -$- $- $- $- $- Human Rights Commission- - - - - - Ethics Commission- - - - - - Administration- - - - - - Elections- - - - - - Legal- - - - - - Nuisance Code Enforcement- - - - - - Finance Department- - - - - - Central Services- - - - - - General Insurance- - - - - - Police Administration- - - - - - Police Patrol Operations- - - - - - Police Investigations- - - - - - Police Community Services- - - - - - Fire Administration- - - - - - Fire Prevention- - - - - - Fire Operations- - - - - - Fire Emergency Management- - - - - - Fire Training- - - - - - Fire Relief Association- - - - - - Public Works Administration- - - - - - Street Department- - - - - - Street Lighting- - - - - - Building Maintenance- - - - - - Central Garage- - - - - - Parks & Recreation Administration- - - - - - Recreation Fee Activities- - - - - - Recreation Non-fee Activities- - - - - - Recreation Nature Center- - - - - - Recreation Activity Center- - - - - - Skating Center- - - - - - Information Technology- - - - - - Park Maintenance- - - - - - Boulevard Landscaping- - - - - - $- $- $- $- $- $- Attachment D-9212020 City of Roseville Reduced Costs for Supplies & Materials Appendix S2 OfficeMotorVehicleOperating SuppliesFuelClothingSuppliesSuppliesOtherTotalComments City Council$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - Human Rights Commission - - - - - - - Ethics Commission - - - - - - - Administration - - - - - - - Elections - - - - - - - Legal - - - - - - - Nuisance Code Enforcement( 125) (1,500)( 100)( 200)( 150) - Moved to Comm. Development Fund(2,075) Finance Department -- -- -- - Central Services(100) - - - - -( 100)Adjusted based on prior-year actuals General Insurance -- - - - - - Police Administration -- - - - - - Police Patrol Operations -- - - - - - Police Investigations -- - - -- - Police Community Services--- - - - - Fire Administration -- - - - - - Fire Prevention -- - - - - - Fire Operations -- - - - - - Fire Emergency Management -- - - - - - Fire Training -- - - - - - Fire Relief Association -- - - - - - Public Works Administration -- - - - - - Street Department -- - - - - - Street Lighting -- - - - - - Building Maintenance -- - - - - - Central Garage -- - - - - - Parks & Recreation Administration(2,000) - - - - - (2,000)Adjusted based on prior-year actuals Recreation Fee Activities - - - - - - - Recreation Non-fee Activities - - - - - - - Recreation Nature Center - - - - - - - Recreation Activity Center - - - - - - - Skating Center - (1,800) - - - - Adjusted based on prior-year actuals(1,800) Information Technology(400) - - - (2,000) - (2,400)Adjusted based on prior-year actuals Parks Maintenance -- - - - - - Boulevard Landscaping -- - - - - - $ (2,625)$ (3,300)$ (100)$ (200)$ (2,150)$ -$ (8,375) Attachment D-9212020 City of Roseville Reduced Costs for Contractual Services, Other Charges Appendix S3 ProfessionalContr. Maint.ContractTraining/ Service sTelephoneTransportationPrintingAdvertisingUtilitiesVehiclesMaintenanceRentalConferencesMembershipsOtherTotalComments City Council$ -$- $- $- $- $- $- $- $- $- $- $- $- Human Rights Commission- - - - - - - - - - - - - Ethics Commission- - - - - - - - - - - - - Administration 6,140- - - - - - (47,700) - 2,200- (1,500) Adjusted based on prior-year actuals(40,860) Elections- - - - - - - - - -- -- Legal- - - - - - - - - -- -- Nuisance Code Enforcement (1,450)(2,400) - (300)- - - - - (500) (125) (250) Moved to Community Development Fun(5,025)d Finance Department- - - -- - - - - -- -- Central Services- - - -- - - - - -- (500) (500)Adjusted based on prior-year actuals General Insurance- - - -- - - - - -- -- Police Administration- - - -- - - - - -- -- Police Patrol Operations- - - -- - - - - -- -- Police Investigations- - - -- - - - - -- -- Police Community Service s- - - -- - - - - -- -- Fire Administration- - - -- - - - - -- -- Fire Prevention- - - -- - - - - -- -- Fire Operations- - - -- - - - - -- -- Fire Emergency Management- - - -- - - - - -- -- Fire Training- - - -- - - - - -- -- Fire Relief Associatio n- - - -- - - - - -- -- Public Works Administration- - - -- - - - - -- -- Street Department 5,000- - - - - 3,000 (250,000)- -- (5,000) (247,000) Moved seal coating to PMP CIP-see tab A 9 Street Lighting- - - - - - - - - -- -- Building Maintenance- - - - - (15,900)- 14,900- -- -(1,000) Adjusted based on prior-year actuals Central Garage- - - - - -- -- -- -- Parks & Recreation Administration- - - - - -- 1,550- (9,000)- (150) Adjusted based on prior-year actuals(7,600) Recreation Fee Activities- - - - - -- -- -- -- Recreation Non-fee Activitie s- - - - - -- -- -- -- Recreation Nature Center- - - - - -- -- -- -- Recreation Activity Cente r- - - - - -- -- -- -- Skating Center- - - - - -- -- -- -- Information Technolog y- - - - - -- -- -- -- Parks Maintenance- - - - - -- -- -- -- Boulevard Landscaping- - - - - -- -- -- -- $ 8,740$ (1,450)$ - $ (300)$- $ (15,900)$ 3,000$ (281,250)$ - $ (7,300)$ (7,400)(125)$ (301,985)$ Attachment D-9212020 City of Roseville Reduced Costs for Labor: Position Reductions Appendix S4 RegularTempEmployeeEmployee WagesOvertimeEmployeesPensionInsuranceTotalComments City Council$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - Human Rights Commissio n - - - - - - Ethics Commission - - - - - - Administratio n - - - - - - Elections - - - - - - Lega l - - - - - - Nuisance Code Enforcement - - - - Finance Departmen t - - - - - - Central Services - - - - - - General Insuranc e - - - - - - Police Administration - - - - - - Police Patrol Operation s - - - - - - Police Investigations - - - - - - Police Community Service s (14,100) - - (2,130) (2,870) (19,100)Reduced FTE from 1 to .80 Fire Administration - - - - - - Fire Preventio n - - - - - - Fire Operations - - - - - - Fire Emergency Managemen t - - - - - - Fire Training - - - - - - Fire Relief Associatio n - - - - - - Public Works Administration - - - - - - Street Departmen t - - - - - - Street Lighting - - - - - - Building Maintenanc e - - - - - - Central Garage - - - - - - Parks & Recreation Administratio n - - - - - - Recreation Fee Activities - - - - - - Recreation Non-fee Activitie s - - - - - - Recreation Nature Center - - - - - - Recreation Activity Cente r - - - - - - Skating Center - - - - - - Information Technolog y - - - - - - Parks Maintenance - - - - - - Boulevard Landscapin g - - - - - - $ (14,100)$ -$ -$ (2,130)$ (2,870)$ (19,100) Attachment D-9212020 City of Roseville Increased Costs for One-Time Spending Appendix A1 Professional TelephoneServicesTrainingOtherTotalComments City Council$-$-$ -$ -$ -$ - - Human Rights Commission- - - - - - - Ethics Commission- - - - - - - Administration- - - - - - - Elections- - - - - - - Legal- - - - - - - Nuisance Code Enforcement- - - - - - - Finance Department- - - - - - - Central Services- - - - - - - General Insurance- - - - - - - Police Administration- - - - - - - Police Patrol Operations- - - - - - - Police Investigations- - - - - - - Police Community Services- - - - - - - Fire Administration- - - - - - - Fire Prevention- - - - - - - Fire Operations- - - - - - - Fire Emergency Management- - - - - - - Fire Training- - - - - - - Fire Relief Association- - - - - - - Public Works Administration- - - - - - - Street Department- - - - - - - Street Lighting- - - - - - - Building Maintenance- - - - - - - Central Garage- - - - - - - Parks & Recreation Administration- - - - - - - Recreation Fee Activities- - - - - - - Recreation Non-fee Activities- - - - - - - Recreation Nature Center- - - - - - - Recreation Activity Center- - - - - - - Skating Center- - - - - - - Information Technology- - - - - - - Parks Maintenance- - - - - - - Boulevard Landscaping- - - - - - - $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - Attachment D-9212020 City of Roseville Increased Costs for Supplies & Materials Appendix A2 OfficeMotorVehicleOperating SuppliesFuelClothingSuppliesSuppliesTotalComments City Council$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - Human Rights Commissio n - - - - - - Ethics Commission - - - - - - Administratio n 1 ,500 - - - - 1,500Adjusted based on prior-year actuals Elections - - - - - - Lega l - - - - - - Nuisance Code Enforcement - - - - - - Finance Departmen t - - - - - - Central Services - - - - - - General Insuranc e - - - - - - Police Administration 2 00 -1 00 - - 3 00Adjusted based on prior-year actuals Police Patrol Operations - - - - - - Police Investigations - (1,000) 7 50 (1,000) 2 ,500 1,250Adjusted based on prior-year actuals Police Community Services - - - - - - Fire Administration - - - 1,500 - 1,500Adjusted based on prior-year actuals Fire Prevention - - - - -- Fire Operations - 5,000 - 5,500 (5,000) 5,500Adjusted based on prior-year actuals Fire Emergency Management - - - - - - Fire Training - - - - - - Fire Relief Associatio n - - - - - - Public Works Administration (250) - 1 50 - 1,300 1,200Adjusted based on prior-year actuals Street Department - - - 4,400 7,000 11,400Adjusted based on prior-year actuals Street Lighting - - - - - - Building Maintenanc e - - - - 2,000 2,000Adjusted based on prior-year actuals Central Garage - - - - - - Parks & Recreation Administratio n - - - - - - Recreation Fee Activities - - - - 2,755 2,755Adjusted based on prior-year actuals Recreation Non-fee Activities - - - - 2 50 2 50Adjusted based on prior-year actuals Recreation Nature Center - - - - - - Recreation Activity Cente r - - - - - - Skating Center - - - - - - Information Technolog y - - - - - - Parks Maintenance - - - 5,000 - 5,000Adjusted based on prior-year actuals Boulevard Landscaping - - - - -- $ 1,450$ 4,000$ 1,000$ 15,400$ 10,805$ 32,655 Attachment D-9212020 City of Roseville Increased Costs for Contractual Services Appendix A3 ProfessionalInternet/Contr. Maint.ContractTraining/Minor ServicesTelephoneTransportationPrintingAdvertisingUtilitiesVehiclesMaintenanceRentalConferencesMembershipsEquipmentOtherTotalComments City Council$ 19,800$- $- $- $- $- $- $- $- $ (225)$ 2,440$- $ 5,708$ 27,723Add Lobbyist $30,000, adjust other costs Human Rights Commission- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ethics Commission- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Administration- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Elections 3,467- - - - - - - - - - - - New contract in 2021-estimate a 5% increas3,467e Legal 12,430- - - - - - - - - - - - 12,430Add'l per contract Nuisance Code Enforcement- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Finance Department( 70) 250 (3,300)- - - - 4,000- 650( 125)- 2,120 3,525Adjusted based on prior year actuals Central Services- -- - - - - - - -- -- - General Insurance- -- - - - - - - -- -- - Police Administration 5,000 100- - - - - ( 1,775)- 550- - 1,025 Mental Health Outreach increased 4,900 Police Patrol Operations 34,895 11,700- - - - 8,000- - 200- - 11,300 Dispatch services/IT equip chge/other adjuste66,095d Police Investigations 200- - - - - - - - 1,875- -- 2,075Add'ltraining request Police Community Services- - - - - - - - - - - -- - Fire Administration- - - - - - - - - - - -- - Fire Prevention- - - - - - - - - - - -- - Fire Operations- - - - - - (4,000) 10,000- - - -- 6,000Adjusted based on prior-year actuals Fire Emergency Management- - - - - - - - - - - -- - Fire Training- - - - - - - - - - - -- - Fire Relief Association- - - - - - - - - - - - 16,000 16,000Adjusted based on prior-year actuals Public Works Administration 1,000- - - - - - - - - - (700) 2,300 2,600Adjusted based on participation levels Street Department- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Street Lighting- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Building Maintenance- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Central Garage- - - - - - - - - 100- - - 100Adjusted based on participation levels Parks & Recreation Administration- - - - - - - - - -- - - - Recreation Fee Activities 6,050- ( 1,000)( 800)950- - - - - ( 1,340)- 4,000 7,860Adjusted based on participation levels Recreation Non-fee Activities 2,750- - 100 - - - - - - - - - 2,850Adjusted based on participation levels Recreation Nature Center 2,500( 550)- 700 (300) 100- 300- 100- - ( 285) 2,565Adjusted based on prior-year actuals Recreation Activity Center- 2,500- - - -- 2,140 1,000- - - - 5,640Adjusted based on prior-year actuals Skating Center- -- - - -- -- - - - - - Information Technology- 43,155- - - -- 229,021- - - - ( 450) 271,726Adjusted based on PY & MetroINet costs (offet by revenue increases) Parks Maintenance 730- - - - - - - - - - - - 730Adjusted based on prior-year actuals Boulevard Landscaping- - - - - - - - - - - - - - $ 88,752$ 57,155$ (4,300)$- $ 650$ 100$ 4,000$ 243,686$ 1,000$ 3,250$ 975$ (700) $ 41,718$ 436,286 Attachment D-9212020 City of Roseville Increased Costs for Labor: New Positions Appendix A6 RegularTempEmployeeEmployee WagesOvertimeEmployeesPensionInsuranceTotalComments City Council$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - Human Rights Commissio n - - - - - - Ethics Commission - - - - - - Administratio n 110,000 - 15,000 - - Intern & Equity & Inclusion Manager 125,000 Elections - - - - - - Lega l - - - - - - Nuisance Code Enforcement - - - - - - Finance Departmen t - - - - - - Central Services - - - - - - General Insuranc e - - - - - - Police Administration 4 ,400 - - - - 4,400Pay Reclass: Records Tech Police Patrol Operations 75,900 - - 12,000 17,100 105,000 Diversity Officer, & sgt in 2019 $12,9 Police Investigations 8 ,550 - - - - Pay Reclass: Investigative Analys8,550t Police Community Services - - - - - - Fire Administration - - - - - - Fire Preventio n - - - - - - Fire Operations 629,280 - - - - 629,2806 NEW FT Firefighters , 3 Lietenants * Fire Emergency Management - - - - - - Fire Training - - - - - - Fire Relief Associatio n - - - - - - Public Works Administration - - - - - - Street Departmen t - - - - - - Street Lighting - - - - - - Building Maintenanc e - - - - - - Central Garage - - - - - - Parks & Recreation Administratio n - - - - - - Recreation Fee Activities - - - - - - Recreation Non-fee Activitie s - - - - - - Recreation Nature Center - - - - - - Recreation Activity Cente r - - - - - - Skating Center - - - - - - Information Technolog y - - - - - - Parks Maintenance - - - - - - Boulevard Landscapin g - - - - - - $ 828,130$ -$ 15,000$ 12,000$ 17,100$ 872,230 Attachment D-9212020 City of Roseville Increased Contributions to Capital Replacement Funds EquipmentOtherTotalComments General Vehicle & Equipment Replacements$ -$ -$ - IT Equipment Replacement - - - General Facility Replacement - - - Park Improvement Program - - - Pavement Management Program - - - Information Technology - - - - - - $ -$ -$ - Attachment D-9212020 0%0%0%8%1%0%0% 12%22%22%16%22%96%34%10% Recovery Attachment G - 9,000 78,87759,00070,000 (30,000) 236,723811,720306,035628,445375,150210,130 723,985184,000 Cost 7,881,1102,674,1101,002,985 $ 0% $ -- 2021 Budget 269,023393,435744,245239,000415,150 Cost 1,038,6208,535,1453,446,890 1,101,985 - $ (23,630) (939,000) (177,000) (30,000) (14,051,640)$ 0 ----- - 23,63030,000 Revenue $ 78,877 59,000 70,000 210,130 - - - - -$ 17,803,485 1,017,985 184,000 3%32,3001%226,9000%0%0%0%7%772,7800% 2%15,0000% 29%87,40018%115,80012%654,035 29%378,00012%40,000 103%230,000 Recovery (7,000) 75,41059,60070,000 (30,000) 234,650938,490269,855135,450600,080973,245942,695184,000364,150198,430 Cost 7,295,0302,543,560 - $ 939,000 177,000 30,000 14,051,640$ (a) 17,803,485 - 2020 Budget 241,300951,740381,005734,330223,000198,430 988,245414,150 Cost 8,268,0452,740,5601,320,695 $ (23,440) (939,000) (177,000) (30,000) (13,542,755)$ - - ----- 6,650 13,250 15,00050,00023,44030,00030,000 111,150134,250973,015197,000230,000378,000939,000177,000135,450 ProgramProgramNetCostProgramProgramNetCostRevenue 13,542,755 $ 75,410 135,450 59,600 70,000 184,000 - - (135,450) - -$ 16,985,960 Total 16,985,960 . s s g e T g Operating Division City CouncilAdministrationElectionsLegalNuisance Code Enforc.Finance DepartmentCentral ServicesGeneral InsurancePoliceFireFire ReliefCentral Garage N/A: Univ NW PILON/A: Admin CharN/A: LC ContributionN/A: Nuis. Code ReimbN/A: MiscellaneousN/A: Interest EarninN/A: Property Taxes Comments:(a) Overall Net Cost represents the amount of cash reserves used (added to) to provide for the budget.(b) Cost Recovery percentage reflects the portion of the operating division's budget recovered by program-related revenues. Public Works AdminStreet DepartmentStreet LightingBuilding Maintenance City of Roseville General Fund Program Operating Budget by Division (Function) Updated 8/05/20 (Decr.) Attachment E (Decrease) $ 3.8% -22.6% 121.3% 5.0% 338.6% 0.3% -21.4% -1.6% 0.0% -25.0% -7.9% -1.1% 0.0%$ 13.2%$ 5.9% 1.1% -0.8% -4.8% 3.1% 0.0%$ 1.1%$ -12.1% 0.0% 0.0%$ -51.1% Budget $ 887,359 (225,000) 6,309,212 94,275 25,669 68,083 (25,000) (6,260) - (25,000) (17,263) (3,400) 65$ 7,082,740$ 1,441,799 15,955 (144,983) (727,200) 69,214 -$ 654,785$ (170,069) - -$ (170,069) $ Budget $ 23,992,529 770,000 11,508,632 1,982,710 33,249 21,302,573 92,000 384,740 - 75,000 201,967 318,600 183,255$ 60,845,255$ 25,749,859 1,508,675 18,179,432 14,359,260 2,279,214 -$ 62,076,440$ 1,234,741 (1,072,000) -$ 162,741 (1,068,444) 35,783,016$ 34,714,572 Actual $ 23,105,170 995,000 5,199,420 1,888,435 7,580 21,234,490 117,000 391,000 - 100,000 219,230 322,000 183,190$ 53,762,515$ 24,308,060 1,492,720 18,324,415 15,086,460 2,210,000 -$ 61,421,655$ 1,404,810 (1,072,000) -$ 332,810 (7,326,330) 43,109,346$ 35,783,016 Actual $ 21,132,512 1,151,987 2,978,939 3,117,654 41,535 22,878,254 84,801 388,952 - 165,653 260,711 871,384 1,050,562$ 54,122,944$ 21,317,594 1,418,314 17,728,546 5,158,271 3,341,074 -$ 48,963,799$ 1,404,810 (1,072,000) -$ 332,810 5,491,955 48,144,198$ 53,636,153 Actual $ 20,888,226 922,055 2,098,383 2,173,873 38,018 21,686,407 97,415 403,224 72,330 266,249 162,200 171,755 763,540$ 49,743,675$ 21,180,873 1,331,722 15,462,679 5,276,694 3,609,550 -$ 46,861,517$ 4,348,621 (2,197,909) 1,982$ 2,152,694 5,034,852 43,109,346$ 48,144,198 201620172018201920202021$ Increase% Incr. Actual $ 20,773,102 1,191,202 2,588,000 2,180,014 58,581 20,960,271 90,045 452,123 70,998 217,657 258,787 436,983 457,757$ 49,735,520$ 20,151,972 1,265,405 18,883,046 7,161,954 3,549,204 -$ 51,011,581$ 2,967,951 (3,743,610) 24,673$ (750,986) (2,027,046) 45,136,393$ 43,109,346 Total Revenues49,819,192 Total Expenditures52,436,016 Total Other Financing Sources288,816 General Property Taxes19,998,869Tax Increments1,677,742Intergovernmental Revenue3,727,376Licenses & Permits2,566,855Gambling Taxes93,815Charges for Services20,352,856Fines and Forfeits107,229Cable Franchise Fees449,920Rentals59,251Donations191,683Special Assessments302,063Investment Income(98,374)Miscellaneous389,907Personnel Services19,363,661Supplies & Materials1,351,165Other Services & Charges23,302,854Capital Outlay4,909,513Debt Service3,508,823Contingency-Transfers In / Bond Prem./Proceeds2,855,900Transfers Out(2,578,845)Sale of Assets11,761 City of Roseville Combined Funds Financial Summary ExpendituresOther Financing Sources (Uses)Net Chg. in Fund Balance / Net Assets(2,328,008)Beginning Fund Balance / Net Assets47,464,400Ending Fund Balance / Net Assets45,136,393 Revenues (Decr.) Attachment E (Decrease) $ 3.7% 0.0% 145.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% -21.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -1.5% 44.6%$ 21.4%$ 5.5% 2.2% -0.7% -7.6% 3.1% 0.0%$ 0.9%$ -12.1% 0.0% 0.0%$ -12.1% Budget $ 847,089 - 5,739,612 - - 1,803 (25,000) - - - (17,263) (3,400) 25,190$ 6,568,031$ 1,051,840 24,280 (40,699) (759,125) 69,214 -$ 345,510$ (170,069) - -$ (170,069) $ Budget $ 23,488,859 - 9,693,132 365,000 - 3,092,258 92,000 - - - 146,967 228,600 81,630$ 37,188,446$ 20,044,610 1,107,410 5,514,311 9,225,135 2,279,214 -$ 38,170,680$ 1,234,741 - -$ 1,234,741 252,507 18,325,916$ 18,578,423 Actual $ 22,641,770 - 3,953,520 365,000 - 3,090,455 117,000 - - - 164,230 232,000 56,440$ 30,620,415$ 18,992,770 1,083,130 5,555,010 9,984,260 2,210,000 -$ 37,825,170$ 1,404,810 - -$ 1,404,810 (5,799,945) 24,125,861$ 18,325,916 Actual $ 20,680,235 - 1,909,989 369,725 - 5,542,602 84,801 - - 35,725 260,711 550,941 893,455$ 30,328,184$ 16,699,944 990,656 6,008,841 2,891,730 3,341,074 -$ 29,932,245$ 2,851,271 (810,374) -$ 2,040,897 2,436,836 24,125,861$ 26,562,697 Actual $ 20,532,693 - 1,974,135 496,416 - 4,961,532 97,415 - 72,330 92,710 162,200 123,850 676,758$ 29,190,039$ 16,413,696 966,511 5,373,931 3,949,245 3,609,550 -$ 30,312,932$ 2,498,621 (389,221) -$ 2,109,400 986,507 23,139,354$ 24,125,861 201620172018201920202021$ Increase% Incr. Actual $ 20,419,929 - 2,069,260 544,957 - 4,710,046 90,045 - 70,998 102,270 130,549 325,884 265,325$ 28,729,263$ 15,465,061 939,631 5,202,408 5,928,415 3,549,204 -$ 31,084,719$ 2,039,718 (1,654,968) -$ 384,750 (1,970,706) 25,110,060$ 23,139,354 Total Revenues28,016,050 Total Expenditures28,651,500 Total Other Financing Sources1,445,119 General Property Taxes19,998,869Tax Increments-Intergovernmental Revenue2,418,599Licenses & Permits484,004Gambling Taxes-Charges for Services4,411,007Fines and Forfeits107,229Cable Franchise Fees-Rentals59,251Donations81,666Special Assessments246,050Investment Income(62,103)Miscellaneous271,479Personnel Services14,800,035Supplies & Materials981,040Other Services & Charges4,845,166Capita l Outlay4,516,436Debt Service3,508,823Contingency-Transfers In / Bond Prem./Proceeds2,578,845Transfers Out(1,137,077)Sale of Assets3,351 City of Roseville Tax-Supported Funds Financial Summary ExpendituresOther Financing Sources (Uses)Net Chg. in Fund Balance809,669Beginning Fund Balance24,300,391Ending Fund Balance25,110,060 Revenues (Decr.) Attachment E (Decrease) $ 0.0% -22.6% 45.7% 6.2% 338.6% 0.4% 0.0% -1.6% 0.0% -25.0% 0.0% 0.0% -19.8%$ 2.2%$ 7.3% -2.0% -0.8% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0%$ 1.3%$ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 0.0% Budget $ 40,270 (225,000) 569,600 94,275 25,669 66,280 - (6,260) - (25,000) - - (25,125)$ 514,709$ 389,959 (8,325) (104,284) 31,925 - -$ 309,275$ - - -$ - $ Budget $ 503,670 770,000 1,815,500 1,617,710 33,249 18,210,315 - 384,740 - 75,000 55,000 90,000 101,625$ 23,656,809$ 5,705,249 401,265 12,665,121 5,134,125 - -$ 23,905,760$ - (1,072,000) -$ (1,072,000) (1,320,951) 25,465,548$ 24,144,597 Actual $ 463,400 995,000 1,245,900 1,523,435 7,580 18,144,035 - 391,000 - 100,000 55,000 90,000 126,750$ 23,142,100$ 5,315,290 409,590 12,769,405 5,102,200 - -$ 23,596,485$ - (1,072,000) -$ (1,072,000) (1,526,385) 26,991,933$ 25,465,548 Actual $ 452,277 1,151,987 1,068,950 2,747,929 41,535 17,335,652 - 388,952 - 129,928 - 320,443 157,107$ 23,794,760$ 4,617,650 427,658 11,719,705 2,266,541 - -$ 19,031,554$ - (1,820,793) 31,182$ (1,789,611) 2,973,595 24,018,338$ 26,991,933 20172018201920202021$ Increase% Incr. Actual $ 355,533 922,055 124,248 1,677,457 38,018 16,724,875 - 403,224 - 173,539 - 47,905 86,782$ 20,553,636$ 4,767,177 365,211 10,088,748 1,327,449 - -$ 16,548,585$ 1,850,000 (1,808,688) 1,982$ 43,294 4,048,345 19,969,992$ 24,018,338 Total Revenues21,006,257 Total Expenditures19,926,861 Total Other Financing Sources(1,135,736) General Property Taxes353,173Tax Increments1,191,202Intergovernmental Revenue518,740Licenses & Permits1,635,057Gambling Taxes58,581Charges for Services16,250,225Fines and Forfeits-Cable Franchise Fees452,123Rentals-Donations115,387Special Assessments128,238Investment Income111,099Miscellaneous192,432Personnel Services4,686,911Supplies & Materials325,774Other Services & Charges13,680,637Capital Outlay1,233,539Debt Service-Contingency-Transfers In / Bond Prem./Proceeds928,233Transfers Out(2,088,642)Sale of Assets24,673 City of Roseville Non Tax-Supported Funds Financial Summary ExpendituresOther Financing Sources (Uses)Net Chg. in Fund Balance / Net Assets(56,340)Beginning Fund Balance / Net Assets20,026,332Ending Fund Balance / Net Assets19,969,992 Revenues (Decr.) -------------- Attachment E 190 22,475 (33,500)(25,000) 508,885366,950944,520 (149,470) $ Increase% Incr. (Decrease) $ 3.8% 0.0% 26.7% 0.0% 0.0% -8.8% -21.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3%$ 5.2%$ 7.2% 3.0% -4.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 4.8%$ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 0.0% Budget $ $ 817,525$ $ 817,525$ $ - $ Budget $ 14,051,640 1,743,715 365,000 348,500 92,000 30,000 56,630$ 16,687,485$ 14,099,305 770,950 2,933,230 - - -$ 17,803,485$ 1,116,000 - -$ 1,116,000 - 7,326,041$ 7,326,041 Actual $ 13,542,755 - 1,376,765 365,000 - 382,000 117,000 - - - - 30,000 56,440$ 15,869,960$ 13,154,785 748,475 3,082,700 - - -$ 16,985,960$ 1,116,000 - -$ 1,116,000 - 7,326,041$ 7,326,041 Actual $ 11,862,099 - 1,175,538 369,725 - 330,319 84,801 - - 12,259 14 26,570 180,766$ 14,042,091$ 11,673,914 692,729 2,786,162 - - -$ 15,152,805$ 1,998,940 (225,000) -$ 1,773,940 663,226 6,662,815$ 7,326,041 --------- 90,04533,68086,20864,576 544,957285,867648,285 20172018201920202021 1,107,2283,028,2321,068,825 Actual (1,654,968) 12,032,29810,793,661 $ 11,523,078 - 1,208,340 496,416 - 284,886 97,415 - - 41,401 11 32,006 58,452$ 13,742,005$ 11,538,058 673,881 2,975,351 - - -$ 15,187,290$ 1,965,553 (219,221) -$ 1,746,332 301,047 6,361,768$ 6,662,815 Total Revenues14,244,859 Total Expenditures14,470,178 Total Other Financing Sources(586,143) General Property TaxesTax IncrementsIntergovernmental RevenueLicenses & PermitsGambling TaxesCharges for ServicesFines and ForfeitsCable Franchise FeesRentalsDonationsSpecial AssessmentsInvestment IncomeMiscellaneousPersonnel ServicesSupplies & MaterialsOther Services & ChargesCapital OutlayDebt ServiceContingencyTransfers InTransfers OutSale of Assets City of Roseville General Fund Financial Summary RevenuesExpendituresOther Financing Sources (Uses)Net Change in Fund Balance(811,462)Beginning Fund Balance7,173,230Ending Fund Balance6,361,768 (Decr.) ----------------- Attachment E (795) 1,640 35,30063,17011,315 $ Increase% Incr. (Decrease) $ 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 1.0%$ 2.7% -0.4% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 2.0%$ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 0.0% Budget $ $ 36,940$ $ 73,690$ $ - $ Budget $ 1,444,575 - - - - 2,292,075 - - - - - 15,000 -$ 3,751,650$ 2,382,285 197,460 1,208,655 - - -$ 3,788,400$ - - -$ - (36,750) 1,841,013$ 1,804,263 Actual $ 1,442,935 - - - - 2,256,775 - - - - - 15,000 -$ 3,714,710$ 2,319,115 198,255 1,197,340 - - -$ 3,714,710$ - - -$ - - 1,841,013$ 1,841,013 Actual $ 1,313,056 - - - - 2,250,167 - - - 23,466 - 2,723 4,728$ 3,594,140$ 2,141,256 163,923 1,072,137 - - -$ 3,377,316$ - - -$ - 216,824 1,624,189$ 1,841,013 ------------- 70,99868,59016,75140,409 157,465 20172018201920202021 1,276,5812,050,2642,074,1601,077,484 Actual $ 1,330,842 - - - - 2,080,299 - - 72,330 51,309 - 2,723 47,521$ 3,585,024$ 2,134,023 142,233 1,061,854 - - -$ 3,338,110$ - - -$ - 246,914 1,377,275$ 1,624,189 Total Revenues3,523,593 Total Expenditures3,309,109 Total Other Financing Sources- General Property TaxesTax IncrementsIntergovernmental RevenueLicenses & PermitsGambling TaxesCharges for ServicesFines and ForfeitsCable Franchise FeesRentalsDonationsSpecial AssessmentsInvestment IncomeMiscellaneousPersonnel ServicesSupplies & MaterialsOther Services & ChargesCapital OutlayDebt ServiceContingencyTransfers InTransfers OutSale of Assets City of Roseville Recreation Fund Financial Summary RevenuesExpendituresOther Financing Sources (Uses)Net Change in Fund Balance214,484Beginning Fund Balance1,162,791Ending Fund Balance1,377,275 (Decr.) ------------------ Attachment E 730 5,000 23,95018,220 $ Increase% Incr. (Decrease) $ 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 1.7%$ 1.8% 3.9% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 1.7%$ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 0.0% Budget $ $ 23,950$ $ 23,950$ $ - $ Budget $ 1,420,030 - - - - - - - - - - - -$ 1,420,030$ 1,007,830 134,500 277,700 - - -$ 1,420,030$ - - -$ - - 410,113$ 410,113 Actual $ 1,396,080 - - - - - - - - - - - -$ 1,396,080$ 989,610 129,500 276,970 - - -$ 1,396,080$ - - -$ - - 410,113$ 410,113 Actual $ 1,288,969 - - - - - - - - - 198 1,790 1,201$ 1,292,158$ 883,870 130,177 140,913 - - -$ 1,154,960$ - - -$ - 137,198 272,915$ 410,113 ---------------- 2,600 (1,034) 851,744122,697147,661 20172018201920202021 1,236,805 Actual $ 1,257,615 - - - - - - - - - 4,252 (1,016) 135$ 1,260,986$ 893,836 143,480 222,165 - - -$ 1,259,480$ - - -$ - 1,506 271,410$ 272,915 Total Revenues1,238,371 Total Expenditures1,122,102 Total Other Financing Sources- General Property TaxesTax IncrementsIntergovernmental RevenueLicenses & PermitsGambling TaxesCharges for ServicesFines and ForfeitsCable Franchise FeesRentalsDonationsSpecial AssessmentsInvestment IncomeMiscellaneousPersonnel ServicesSupplies & MaterialsOther Services & ChargesCapital OutlayDebt ServiceContingencyTransfers InTransfers OutSale of Assets City of Roseville Park Maintenance Fund Financial Summary RevenuesExpendituresOther Financing Sources (Uses)Net Change in Fund Balance116,269Beginning Fund Balance155,141Ending Fund Balance271,410 (Decr.) ---------------- 3 Attachment E (2,400) 25,93054,931 372,662271,726 $ Increase% Incr. (Decrease) $ 0.0% 0.0% 14.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 12.3%$ 1.0% -34.8% 53.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 9.7%$ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 0.0% Budget $ $ 372,665$ $ 295,256$ $ 54,931 $ Budget $ - - 2,949,417 - - 451,683 - - - - - 2,000 -$ 3,403,100$ 2,555,190 4,500 782,816 - - -$ 3,342,506$ 118,741 - -$ 118,741 179,335 1,731,466$ 1,910,801 Actual $ - - 2,576,755 - - 451,680 - - - - - 2,000 -$ 3,030,435$ 2,529,260 6,900 511,090 - - -$ 3,047,250$ 63,810 - -$ 63,810 46,995 1,684,471$ 1,731,466 Actual $ 190,971 - - - - 2,962,116 - - - - - 52,984 470,286$ 3,676,357$ 2,000,904 3,827 1,154,592 156,836 - -$ 3,316,159$ 25,000 (235,374) -$ (210,374) 149,824 1,534,647$ 1,684,471 -------------- 9,901 11,184 198,086 629,726229,984127,862 20172018201920202021 2,365,0401,745,496 Actual $ 197,271 - - - - 2,596,347 - - - - - 2,195 446,557$ 3,242,370$ 1,847,779 6,917 903,095 36,270 - -$ 2,794,061$ 130,837 (170,000) -$ (39,163) 409,146 1,125,501$ 1,534,647 Total Revenues2,573,027 Total Expenditures2,616,390 Total Other Financing Sources127,862 General Property TaxesTax IncrementsIntergovernmental RevenueLicenses & PermitsGambling TaxesCharges for ServicesFines and ForfeitsCable Franchise FeesRentalsDonationsSpecial AssessmentsInvestment IncomeMiscellaneousPersonnel ServicesSupplies & MaterialsOther Services & ChargesCapital OutlayDebt ServiceContingencyTransfers InTransfers OutSale of Assets City of Roseville Information Technology Fund Financial Summary RevenuesExpendituresOther Financing Sources (Uses)Net Change in Fund Balance84,499Beginning Fund Balance1,041,002Ending Fund Balance1,125,501 (Decr.) -------------------- Attachment E (3,400) 62,61469,214 $ Increase% Incr. (Decrease) $ 2.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -34.0% 0.0%$ 2.7%$ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.1% 0.0%$ 3.1%$ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 0.0% Budget $ $ 59,214$ $ 69,214$ $ - $ Budget $ 2,272,614 - - - - - - - - - - 6,600 -$ 2,279,214$ - - - - 2,279,214 -$ 2,279,214$ - - - -$ - - 2,543,920$ 2,543,920 Actual $ 2,210,000 - - - - - - - - - - 10,000 -$ 2,220,000$ - - - - 2,210,000 -$ 2,210,000$ - - - -$ - 10,000 2,533,920$ 2,543,920 Actual $ 2,840,697 - - - - - - - - - 38,988 10,586 -$ 2,890,271$ - - - - 3,341,074 -$ 3,341,074$ 252,331 - - -$ 252,331 (198,472) 2,533,920$ 2,335,448 ------------------ 40,84425,362 118,031 20172018201920202021 3,298,1353,549,204 Actual $ 3,284,556 - - - - - - - - - 35,430 10,586 -$ 3,330,572$ - - - - 3,609,550 -$ 3,609,550$ 186,231 - - -$ 186,231 (92,747) 2,626,667$ 2,533,920 Total Revenues3,364,341 Total Expenditures3,549,204 Total Other Financing Sources118,031 General Property TaxesTax IncrementsIntergovernmental RevenueLicenses & PermitsGambling TaxesCharges for ServicesFines and ForfeitsCable Franchise FeesRentalsDonationsSpecial AssessmentsInvestment IncomeMiscellaneousPersonnel ServicesSupplies & MaterialsOther Services & ChargesCapital OutlayDebt ServiceContingencyTransfers In / Bond PremiumTransfers OutDebt Issuance / OtherSale of Assets City of Roseville Debt Service Funds Financial Summary RevenuesExpendituresOther Financing Sources (Uses)Net Change in Fund Balance(66,832)Beginning Fund Balance2,693,499Ending Fund Balance2,626,667 (Decr.) -------------------- Attachment E 25,000 (979,625) $ Increase% Incr. (Decrease) $ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%$ 1.8%$ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -46.7% 0.0% 0.0%$ -46.7%$ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 0.0% Budget $ $ 25,000$ $ (979,625)$ $ - $ Budget $ 1,343,000 - - - - - - - - - - 15,000 25,000$ 1,383,000$ - - - 1,116,235 - -$ 1,116,235$ - - -$ - 266,765 1,875,065$ 2,141,830 Actual $ 1,343,000 - - - - - - - - - - 15,000 -$ 1,358,000$ - - - 2,095,860 - -$ 2,095,860$ - - -$ - (737,860) 2,612,925$ 1,875,065 Actual $ 1,139,142 - - - - - - - - - - 37,107 206,038$ 1,382,287$ - - - 1,024,214 - -$ 1,024,214$ - - -$ - 358,073 2,612,925$ 2,970,998 ------------------ 30,664 157,740 20172018201920202021 1,187,5271,274,656 Actual $ 1,176,719 - - - - - - - - - - 11,728 123,183$ 1,311,630$ - - - 1,143,371 - -$ 1,143,371$ - - -$ - 168,259 2,444,666$ 2,612,925 Total Revenues1,375,931 Total Expenditures1,274,656 Total Other Financing Sources- General Property TaxesTax IncrementsIntergovernmental RevenueLicenses & PermitsGambling TaxesCharges for ServicesFines and ForfeitsCable Franchise FeesRentalsDonationsSpecial AssessmentsInvestment IncomeMiscellaneousPersonnel ServicesSupplies & MaterialsOther Services & ChargesCapital OutlayDebt ServiceContingencyTransfers InTransfers OutSale of Assets City of Roseville Vehicle & Equipment Funds Financial Summary RevenuesExpendituresOther Financing Sources (Uses)Net Change in Fund Balance101,275Beginning Fund Balance2,343,391Ending Fund Balance2,444,666 (Decr.) -------------------- Attachment E (294,500) 5,000,000 $ Increase% Incr. (Decrease) $ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 641.8%$ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -5.4% 0.0% 0.0%$ -5.4%$ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 0.0% Budget $ $ 5,000,000$ $ (294,500)$ $ - $ Budget $ 776,000 - 5,000,000 - - - - - - - - 3,000 -$ 5,779,000$ - - - 5,178,900 - -$ 5,178,900$ - - -$ - 600,100 2,030,201$ 2,630,301 Actual $ 776,000 - - - - - - - - - - 3,000 -$ 779,000$ - - - 5,473,400 - -$ 5,473,400$ - - -$ - (4,694,400) 1,724,601$ 2,030,201 Actual $ 740,968 - 77,800 - - - - - - - - 39,015 -$ 857,783$ - - - 276,961 - -$ 276,961$ - - -$ - 580,822 1,143,779$ 1,724,601 ------------------ (2,735) 209,971 154,467500,000 20172018201920202021 Actual $ 415,254 - 74,275 - - - - - - - - (1,017) -$ 488,512$ - - - 98,606 - -$ 98,606$ - - -$ - 389,906 753,873$ 1,143,779 Total Revenues207,236 Total Expenditures154,467 Total Other Financing Sources500,000 General Property TaxesTax IncrementsIntergovernmental RevenueLicenses & PermitsGambling TaxesCharges for ServicesFines and ForfeitsCable Franchise FeesRentalsDonationsSpecial AssessmentsInvestment IncomeMiscellaneousPersonnel ServicesSupplies & MaterialsOther Services & ChargesCapital OutlayDebt ServiceContingencyTransfers InTransfers OutSale of Assets City of Roseville Building Replacement Fund Financial Summary RevenuesExpendituresOther Financing Sources (Uses)Net Change in Fund Balance552,769Beginning Fund Balance201,104Ending Fund Balance753,873 (Decr.) --------------------- Attachment E (150,000) $ Increase% Incr. (Decrease) $ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 0.0%$ 0.0% 0.0% -42.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ -42.9%$ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 0.0% Budget $ $ -$ $ (150,000)$ $ - $ Budget $ 245,000 - - - - - - - - - - 1,500 -$ 246,500$ - - 200,000 - - -$ 200,000$ - - -$ - 46,500 (18,724)$ 27,776 Actual $ 245,000 - - - - - - - - - - 1,500 -$ 246,500$ - - 350,000 - - -$ 350,000$ - - -$ - (103,500) 84,776$ (18,724) Actual $ 233,940 - - - - - - - - - - 6,797 364$ 241,101$ - - 719,063 - - -$ 719,063$ 350,000 - -$ 350,000 (127,962) 212,738$ 84,776 Actual $ 241,657 - - - - - - - - - - (995) -$ 240,662$ - - 128,915 - - -$ 128,915$ - - -$ - 111,747 100,991$ 212,738 - ----------------- 1,373 85,898 177,938 106,438 201620172018201920202021 Actual $ 242,656 - - - - - - - - - - 1,650 -$ 244,306$ - - 254,656 - - -$ 254,656$ - - -$ - (10,350) 111,341$ 100,991 Total Revenues179,311 Total Expenditures192,336 Total Other Financing Sources- General Property TaxesTax IncrementsIntergovernmental RevenueLicenses & PermitsGambling TaxesCharges for ServicesFines and ForfeitsCable Franchise FeesRentalsDonationsSpecial AssessmentsInvestment IncomeMiscellaneousPersonnel ServicesSupplies & MaterialsOther Services & ChargesCapital OutlayDebt ServiceContingencyTransfers InTransfers OutSale of Assets City of Roseville Pathway Maintenance Fund Financial Summary RevenuesExpendituresOther Financing Sources (Uses)Net Change in Fund Balance(13,025)Beginning Fund Balance124,366Ending Fund Balance111,341 (Decr.) --------------------- Attachment E (25,000) $ Increase% Incr. (Decrease) $ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 0.0%$ 0.0% 0.0% -38.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ -38.5%$ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 0.0% Budget $ $ -$ $ (25,000)$ $ - $ Budget $ 21,000 - - - - - - - - - - 500 -$ 21,500$ - - 40,000 - - -$ 40,000$ - - -$ - (18,500) 52,760$ 34,260 Actual $ 21,000 - - - - - - - - - - 500 -$ 21,500$ - - 65,000 - - -$ 65,000$ - - -$ - (43,500) 96,260$ 52,760 Actual $ 20,052 - - - - - - - - - - 2,999 18,761$ 41,812$ - - 36,911 - - -$ 36,911$ - - -$ - 4,901 91,359$ 96,260 Actual $ 20,713 - - - - - - - - - - 432 -$ 21,145$ - - 15,684 - - -$ 15,684$ - - -$ - 5,461 85,898$ 91,359 - ------------------- 661 14,828 201620172018201920202021 Actual $ 14,856 - - - - - - - - - - 877 -$ 15,733$ - - - - - -$ -$ - - -$ - 15,733 70,165$ 85,898 Total Revenues15,489 Total Expenditures- Total Other Financing Sources- General Property TaxesTax IncrementsIntergovernmental RevenueLicenses & PermitsGambling TaxesCharges for ServicesFines and ForfeitsCable Franchise FeesRentalsDonationsSpecial AssessmentsInvestment IncomeMiscellaneousPersonnel ServicesSupplies & MaterialsOther Services & ChargesCapital OutlayDebt ServiceContingencyTransfers InTransfers OutSale of Assets City of Roseville Street Lighting Fund Financial Summary RevenuesExpendituresOther Financing Sources (Uses)Net Change in Fund Balance15,489Beginning Fund Balance54,676Ending Fund Balance70,165 (Decr.) ---------------------- Attachment E $ Increase% Incr. (Decrease) $ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 0.0%$ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 0.0%$ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 0.0% Budget $ $ -$ $ -$ $ - $ Budget $ 60,000 - - - - - - - - - - 2,000 -$ 62,000$ - - 71,910 - - -$ 71,910$ - - -$ - (9,910) 202,811$ 192,901 Actual $ 60,000 - - - - - - - - - - 2,000 -$ 62,000$ - - 71,910 - - -$ 71,910$ - - -$ - (9,910) 212,721$ 202,811 Actual $ 57,291 - - - - - - - - - - 8,121 -$ 65,412$ - - 99,063 - - -$ 99,063$ - - -$ - (33,651) 246,372$ 212,721 ------------------- 3,713 59,426 64,649 20172018201920202021 Actual $ 59,181 - - - - - - - - - - 1,635 -$ 60,816$ - - 66,867 - - -$ 66,867$ - - -$ - (6,051) 252,423$ 246,372 Total Revenues63,139 Total Expenditures64,649 Total Other Financing Sources- General Property TaxesTax IncrementsIntergovernmental RevenueLicenses & PermitsGambling TaxesCharges for ServicesFines and ForfeitsCable Franchise FeesRentalsDonationsSpecial AssessmentsInvestment IncomeMiscellaneousPersonnel ServicesSupplies & MaterialsOther Services & ChargesCapital OutlayDebt ServiceContingencyTransfers InTransfers OutSale of Assets City of Roseville Boulevard Maintenance Fund Financial Summary RevenuesExpendituresOther Financing Sources (Uses)Net Change in Fund Balance(1,510)Beginning Fund Balance253,933Ending Fund Balance252,423 (Decr.) ------------------ Attachment E (17,263) 250,000250,000 (225,000) $ Increase% Incr. (Decrease) $ 30.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 20.5%$ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.8% 0.0% 0.0%$ 20.8%$ -100.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ -100.0% Budget $ $ 232,737$ $ 250,000$ $ (225,000) $ Budget $ 1,070,000 - - - - - - - - - 146,967 150,000 -$ 1,366,967$ - - - 1,450,000 - -$ 1,450,000$ - - -$ - (83,033) 6,610,348$ 6,527,315 Actual $ 820,000 - - - - - - - - - 164,230 150,000 -$ 1,134,230$ - - - 1,200,000 - -$ 1,200,000$ 225,000 - -$ 225,000 159,230 6,451,118$ 6,610,348 Actual $ 601,559 - 656,651 - - - - - - - 221,511 325,428 11,311$ 1,816,460$ - - - 1,364,408 - -$ 1,364,408$ 225,000 (350,000) -$ (125,000) 327,052 6,124,066$ 6,451,118 --------------- 8,875 89,705 465,502 962,032148,378225,000 20172018201920202021 4,253,593 Actual $ 621,402 - 691,520 - - - - - - - 122,507 65,720 910$ 1,502,059$ - - - 2,594,353 - -$ 2,594,353$ 216,000 - -$ 216,000 (876,294) 7,000,360$ 6,124,066 Total Revenues1,674,492 Total Expenditures4,253,593 Total Other Financing Sources225,000 General Property TaxesTax IncrementsIntergovernmental RevenueLicenses & PermitsGambling TaxesCharges for ServicesFines and ForfeitsCable Franchise FeesRentalsDonationsSpecial AssessmentsInvestment IncomeMiscellaneous / Developer FeePersonnel ServicesSupplies & MaterialsOther Services & ChargesCapital OutlayDebt ServiceContingencyTransfers InTransfers OutSale of Assets City of Roseville Street Infrastructure Replacement Fund Financial Summary RevenuesExpendituresOther Financing Sources (Uses)Net Change in Fund Balance(2,354,101)Beginning Fund Balance9,354,461Ending Fund Balance7,000,360 (Decr.) --------------------- Attachment E 265,000 $ Increase% Incr. (Decrease) $ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 0.0%$ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 21.8% 0.0% 0.0%$ 21.8%$ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 0.0% Budget $ $ -$ $ 265,000$ $ - $ Budget $ 785,000 - - - - - - - - - - 3,000 -$ 788,000$ - - - 1,480,000 - -$ 1,480,000$ - - -$ - (692,000) 639,136$ (52,864) Actual $ 785,000 - - - - - - - - - - 3,000 -$ 788,000$ - - - 1,215,000 - -$ 1,215,000$ - - -$ - (427,000) 1,066,136$ 639,136 Actual $ 391,491 - - - - - - - - - - 36,821 -$ 428,312$ - - - 69,311 - -$ 69,311$ - - -$ - 359,001 1,066,136$ 1,425,137 ------------------- 6,149 15,715 198,086 20172018201920202021 Actual $ 404,405 - - - - - - - - - - (147) -$ 404,258$ - - - 76,645 - -$ 76,645$ - - -$ - 327,613 738,523$ 1,066,136 Total Revenues204,235 Total Expenditures15,715 Total Other Financing Sources- General Property TaxesTax IncrementsIntergovernmental RevenueLicenses & PermitsGambling TaxesCharges for ServicesFines and ForfeitsCable Franchise FeesRentalsDonationsSpecial AssessmentsInvestment IncomeMiscellaneousPersonnel ServicesSupplies & MaterialsOther Services & ChargesCapital OutlayDebt ServiceContingencyTransfers InTransfers OutSale of Assets City of Roseville Park Improvement Program Fund Financial Summary RevenuesExpendituresOther Financing Sources (Uses)Net Change in Fund Balance188,520Beginning Fund Balance550,003Ending Fund Balance738,523 (Decr.) --------------- Attachment E (5,625)(3,355) 70,475 (23,125)(18,425) 243,730 (198,900) $ Increase% Incr. (Decrease) $ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.1% 0.0% -82.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -100.0%$ -9.0%$ 21.3% -26.2% -0.9% -68.2% 0.0% 0.0%$ 13.9%$ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 0.0% Budget $ $ (151,550)$ $ 216,325$ $ - $ Budget $ - - - 1,460,710 - 41,000 - - - - - 25,000 -$ 1,526,710$ 1,387,230 15,825 365,545 8,575 - -$ 1,777,175$ - - -$ - (250,465) 2,221,808$ 1,971,343 Actual $ - - - 1,390,235 - 239,900 - - - - - 25,000 23,125$ 1,678,260$ 1,143,500 21,450 368,900 27,000 - -$ 1,560,850$ - - -$ - 117,410 2,104,398$ 2,221,808 Actual $ - - - 2,586,833 - 71,321 - - - - - 93,721 4,297$ 2,756,172$ 789,914 8,655 302,840 5,760 - -$ 1,107,169$ - (35,375) -$ (35,375) 1,613,628 2,104,398$ 3,718,026 ------------- 30,53141,67426,21022,500 (45,177) 200,902375,775 20172018201920202021 1,417,4791,141,046 Actual $ - - - 1,538,173 - 109,007 - - - - - 10,426 3,794$ 1,661,400$ 1,042,740 8,007 305,683 4,347 - -$ 1,360,777$ - (35,375) -$ (35,375) 265,248 1,839,150$ 2,104,398 Total Revenues1,690,586 Total Expenditures1,565,531 Total Other Financing Sources(45,177) General Property TaxesTax IncrementsIntergovernmental RevenueLicenses & PermitsGambling TaxesCharges for ServicesFines and ForfeitsCable Franchise FeesRentalsDonationsSpecial AssessmentsInvestment IncomeMiscellaneousPersonnel ServicesSupplies & MaterialsOther Services & ChargesCapital OutlayDebt ServiceContingencyTransfers InTransfers OutSale of Assets City of Roseville Community Development Fund Financial Summary RevenuesExpendituresOther Financing Sources (Uses)Net Change in Fund Balance79,878Beginning Fund Balance1,759,272Ending Fund Balance1,839,150 (Decr.) ------------------- Attachment E (9,730) 85,575 (39,730) $ Increase% Incr. (Decrease) $ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ -2.0%$ -17.4% 0.0% 40.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 10.5%$ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 0.0% Budget $ $ (9,730)$ $ 45,845$ $ - $ Budget $ 453,670 - - - - - - - - - - - 23,125$ 476,795$ 188,170 - 295,625 - - -$ 483,795$ - - -$ - (7,000) 235,440$ 228,440 Actual $ 463,400 - - - - - - - - - - - 23,125$ 486,525$ 227,900 - 210,050 - - -$ 437,950$ - - -$ - 48,575 186,865$ 235,440 Actual $ 452,277 - - - - - - - - - - 4,916 27,375$ 484,568$ 204,760 - 146,104 - - -$ 350,864$ - - -$ - 133,704 53,161$ 186,865 ----------------- (3,646) 60,000 353,173 207,400214,544 20172018201920202021 Actual $ 355,533 - - - - - - - - - - 1,501 26,250$ 383,284$ 205,340 - 112,366 - - -$ 317,706$ - - -$ - 65,578 (12,417)$ 53,161 Total Revenues409,527 Total Expenditures421,944 Total Other Financing Sources- General Property TaxesTax IncrementsIntergovernmental RevenueLicenses & PermitsGambling TaxesCharges for ServicesFines and ForfeitsCable Franchise FeesRentalsDonationsSpecial AssessmentsInvestment IncomeMiscellaneousPersonnel ServicesSupplies & MaterialsOther Services & ChargesCapital OutlayDebt ServiceContingencyTransfers InTransfers OutSale of Assets City of Roseville EDA General Fund Financial Summary RevenuesExpendituresOther Financing Sources (Uses)Net Change in Fund Balance(12,417)Beginning Fund Balance-Ending Fund Balance(12,417) (Decr.) - ----------------- Attachment E 1,770 (6,260)(7,919) 50,000 $ Increase% Incr. (Decrease) $ #DIV/0! 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 11.2%$ 0.8% 0.0% -3.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ -1.3%$ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 0.0% Budget $ $ 43,740$ $ (6,149)$ $ - $ Budget $ 50,000 - - - - - - 384,740 - - - 1,000 -$ 435,740$ 236,030 2,000 214,131 - - -$ 452,161$ - - -$ - (16,421) 94,006$ 77,585 Actual $ - - - - - - - 391,000 - - - 1,000$ 392,000$ 234,260 2,000 222,050 - - -$ 458,310$ - - -$ - (66,310) 160,316$ 94,006 Actual $ - - - - - - - 388,952 - - - 9,057 -$ 398,009$ 247,321 2,561 190,920 - - -$ 440,802$ - (141,947) -$ (141,947) (184,740) 345,056$ 160,316 ---------------- 5,0921,789 (17,000) 452,123235,479207,955 20172018201920202021 Actual $ - - - - - - - 403,224 - - - 3,355 -$ 406,579$ 241,604 6,904 227,623 - - -$ 476,131$ - (17,000) -$ (17,000) (86,552) 431,608$ 345,056 Total Revenues457,215 Total Expenditures445,223 Total Other Financing Sources(17,000) General Property TaxesTax IncrementsIntergovernmental RevenueLicenses & PermitsGambling TaxesCharges for ServicesFines and ForfeitsCable Franchise FeesRentalsDonationsSpecial AssessmentsInvestment IncomeMiscellaneousPersonnel ServicesSupplies & MaterialsOther Services & ChargesCapital OutlayDebt ServiceContingencyTransfers InTransfers OutSale of Assets City of Roseville Communications Fund Financial Summary RevenuesExpendituresOther Financing Sources (Uses)Net Change in Fund Balance(5,008)Beginning Fund Balance436,616Ending Fund Balance431,608 (Decr.) ------------------ Attachment E 20,400 199,000140,010 (101,150) $ Increase% Incr. (Decrease) $ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 10.4%$ 9.7% 0.0% 12.7% -91.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 3.4%$ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 0.0% Budget $ $ 199,000$ $ 59,260$ $ - $ Budget $ - - - - - 2,110,300 - - - - - 2,000 -$ 2,112,300$ 1,577,550 24,000 181,150 10,050 - -$ 1,792,750$ - (302,000) -$ (302,000) 17,550 405,382$ 422,932 Actual $ - - - - - 1,911,300 - - - - - 2,000 -$ 1,913,300$ 1,437,540 24,000 160,750 111,200 - -$ 1,733,490$ - (302,000) -$ (302,000) (122,190) 527,572$ 405,382 Actual $ - - 280,097 - - 1,977,123 - - - - - 20,470 -$ 2,277,690$ 1,395,504 33,671 114,758 54,909 - -$ 1,598,842$ - (601,140) -$ (601,140) 77,708 449,864$ 527,572 ---------------- 16,17819,501 272,376 (322,190) 20172018201920202021 1,692,0141,290,559 Actual $ - - - - - 1,785,836 - - - - - 4,736 -$ 1,790,572$ 1,346,690 25,865 128,195 56,575 - -$ 1,557,325$ - (759,875) -$ (759,875) (526,628) 976,492$ 449,864 Total Revenues1,708,192 Total Expenditures1,582,436 Total Other Financing Sources(322,190) General Property TaxesTax IncrementsIntergovernmental RevenueLicenses & PermitsGambling TaxesCharges for ServicesFines and ForfeitsCable Franchise FeesRentalsDonationsSpecial AssessmentsInvestment IncomeMiscellaneousPersonnel ServicesSupplies & MaterialsOther Services & ChargesCapital OutlayDebt ServiceContingencyTransfers InTransfers OutSale of Assets City of Roseville License Center Fund Financial Summary RevenuesExpendituresOther Financing Sources (Uses)Net Change in Fund Balance(196,434)Beginning Fund Balance1,172,926Ending Fund Balance976,492 Page 20 of 29 (Decr.) ---------------- Attachment E 2,2601,2005,900 (2,000) 23,800 (69,040) $ Increase% Incr. (Decrease) $ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 17.9% 0.0% -58.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -100.0%$ -17.9%$ 0.9% 80.0% 31.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 3.5%$ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 0.0% Budget $ $ (47,240)$ $ 9,360$ $ - $ Budget $ - - - 157,000 - 50,000 - - - - - 10,000 -$ 217,000$ 246,300 2,700 24,600 - - -$ 273,600$ - - -$ - (56,600) 805,268$ 748,668 Actual $ - - - 133,200 - 119,040 - - - - - 10,000 2,000$ 264,240$ 244,040 1,500 18,700 - - -$ 264,240$ - - -$ - - 805,268$ 805,268 Actual $ - - - 161,096 - 16,707 - - - - - 19,051 -$ 196,854$ 221,351 883 83,576 - - -$ 305,810$ - - -$ - (108,956) 805,268$ 696,312 -------------- 260 1,947 94,23713,82430,99623,382 217,578205,536 20172018201920202021 Actual $ - - - 139,284 - 26,565 - - - - - 7,209 -$ 173,058$ 221,351 883 83,576 - - -$ 305,810$ - - -$ - (132,752) 938,020$ 805,268 Total Revenues327,586 Total Expenditures260,174 Total Other Financing Sources- General Property TaxesTax IncrementsIntergovernmental RevenueLicenses & PermitsGambling TaxesCharges for ServicesFines and ForfeitsCable Franchise FeesRentalsDonationsSpecial AssessmentsInvestment IncomeMiscellaneousPersonnel ServicesSupplies & MaterialsOther Services & ChargesCapital OutlayDebt ServiceContingencyTransfers InTransfers OutSale of Assets City of Roseville Engineering Services Fund Financial Summary RevenuesExpendituresOther Financing Sources (Uses)Net Change in Fund Balance67,412Beginning Fund Balance870,608Ending Fund Balance938,020 (Decr.) - ----------------- Attachment E 25,66925,669 (25,000)(25,000) $ Increase% Incr. (Decrease) $ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 338.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 0.6%$ 338.6% 0.0% -25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 0.6%$ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 0.0% Budget $ $ 669$ $ 669$ $ - $ Budget $ - - - - 33,249 - - - - 75,000 - - -$ 108,249$ 33,249 - 75,000 - -$ 108,249$ - - -$ - - 128,918$ 128,918 Actual $ - - - - 7,580 - - - - 100,000 - - -$ 107,580$ 7,580 - 100,000 - - -$ 107,580$ - - -$ - - 128,918$ 128,918 Actual $ - - - - 41,535 - - - - 129,928 - 3,189 -$ 174,652$ 35,485 - 92,000 - - -$ 127,485$ - - -$ - 47,167 81,751$ 128,918 ----------------- 1,4433,405 58,581 115,387142,454 20172018201920202021 Actual $ - - - - 38,018 - - - - 123,539 - 1,154 -$ 162,711$ 34,630 - 157,000 - - -$ 191,630$ - - -$ - (28,919) 110,670$ 81,751 Total Revenues175,411 Total Expenditures145,859 Total Other Financing Sources- General Property TaxesTax IncrementsIntergovernmental RevenueLicenses & PermitsGambling TaxesCharges for ServicesFines and ForfeitsCable Franchise FeesRentalsDonationsSpecial AssessmentsInvestment IncomeMiscellaneousPersonnel ServicesSupplies & MaterialsOther Services & ChargesCapital OutlayDebt ServiceContingencyTransfers InTransfers OutSale of Assets City of Roseville Lawful Gambling Fund Financial Summary RevenuesExpendituresOther Financing Sources (Uses)Net Change in Fund Balance29,552Beginning Fund Balance81,118Ending Fund Balance110,670 (Decr.) -------------------- Attachment E 569,600820,000 $ Increase% Incr. (Decrease) $ 0.0% 0.0% 49.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 0.0%$ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 90.3% 0.0% 0.0%$ 0.0%$ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 0.0% Budget $ $ 569,600$ $ 820,000$ $ - $ Budget $ - - 1,728,000 - - - - - - - - - -$ 1,728,000$ - - - 1,728,000 - -$ 1,728,000$ - - -$ - - (235,472)$ (235,472) Actual $ - - 1,158,400 - - - - - - - - - -$ 1,158,400$ - - - 908,000 - -$ 908,000$ - - -$ - 250,400 (485,872)$ (235,472) 348,306 Actual $ - - 20,721 - - - - - - - - - -$ 20,721$ - - - 854,899 - -$ 854,899$ - - -$ - (834,178) 348,306$ (485,872) ---------------------- 357,320 20172018201920202021 Actual $ - - - - - - - - - - - - -$ -$ - - - 9,014 - -$ 9,014$ - - -$ - (9,014) 357,320$ Total Revenues- Total Expenditures- Total Other Financing Sources- General Property TaxesTax IncrementsIntergovernmental RevenueLicenses & PermitsGambling TaxesCharges for ServicesFines and ForfeitsCable Franchise FeesRentalsDonationsSpecial AssessmentsInvestment IncomeMiscellaneousPersonnel ServicesSupplies & MaterialsOther Services & ChargesCapital OutlayDebt ServiceContingencyTransfers InTransfers OutSale of Assets City of Roseville MSA Program Fund Financial Summary RevenuesExpendituresOther Financing Sources (Uses)Net Change in Fund Balance-Beginning Fund Balance-Ending Fund Balance (Decr.) ------------------ Attachment E 600 5,910 114,925 (354,000) $ Increase% Incr. (Decrease) $ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 0.0%$ 0.8% 0.4% 2.2% -32.5% 0.0% 0.0%$ -3.2%$ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 0.0% Budget $ $ -$ $ (232,565)$ $ - $ Budget $ - - - - - 7,308,000 - - - - - - -$ 7,308,000$ 704,190 162,800 5,455,925 735,000 - -$ 7,057,915$ - (385,000) -$ (385,000) (134,915) 10,896,467 -$ 10,761,552 Actual $ - - - - - 7,308,000 - - - - - - -$ 7,308,000$ 698,280 162,200 5,341,000 1,089,000 - -$ 7,290,480$ - (385,000) -$ (385,000) (367,480) 11,263,947 -$ 10,896,467 Actual $ - - - - - 6,783,393 - - - - - - 23,289$ 6,806,682$ 618,398 221,460 4,919,579 375,320 - -$ 6,134,757$ - (385,000) 14,889$ (370,111) 301,814 10,962,133 -$ 11,263,947 ------------ 150 22,87056,32911,673 643,488155,373335,811 (385,000) 20172018201920202021 6,557,0865,140,163 Actual $ - - - - - 6,644,952 - - - - - 2,090 4,951$ 6,651,993$ 623,116 193,643 4,749,436 353,044 - -$ 5,919,239$ - (385,000) -$ (385,000) 347,754 10,614,379 -$ 10,962,133 Total Revenues6,636,435 Total Expenditures6,274,835 Total Other Financing Sources(373,327) General Property TaxesTax IncrementsIntergovernmental RevenueLicenses & PermitsGambling TaxesCharges for ServicesFines and ForfeitsCable Franchise FeesRentalsDonationsSpecial AssessmentsInvestment IncomeMiscellaneousPersonnel ServicesSupplies & MaterialsOther Services & ChargesCapital OutlayDebt ServiceContingencyTransfers InTransfers OutSale of Assets City of Roseville Water Fund Financial Summary RevenuesExpendituresOther Financing Sources (Uses)Net Change in Assets(11,727)Beginning Net Assets10,626,106Prior Period Adjustment-Ending Net Assets10,614,379 (Decr.) ----------------- Attachment E (700) (3,590) (61,000) 114,000 (112,150) $ Increase% Incr. (Decrease) $ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 2.0%$ -0.7% -1.5% -2.9% -4.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ -3.0%$ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 0.0% Budget $ $ 114,000$ $ (177,440)$ $ - $ Budget $ - - - - - 5,770,000 - - - - - - -$ 5,770,000$ 508,830 44,700 3,750,000 1,460,000 - -$ 5,763,530$ - (285,000) -$ (285,000) (278,530) 13,924,770 -$ 13,646,240 Actual $ - - - - - 5,656,000 - - - - - - -$ 5,656,000$ 512,420 45,400 3,862,150 1,521,000 - -$ 5,940,970$ - (285,000) -$ (285,000) (569,970) 14,494,740 -$ 13,924,770 Actual $ - - 438,602 - - 5,733,880 - - - - - 8,611 -$ 6,181,093$ 537,215 37,327 4,169,547 455,789 - -$ 5,199,878$ - (285,000) 16,500$ (268,500) 712,715 13,782,025 -$ 14,494,740 -------------- 117 15,40043,211 499,533383,593 (285,114) 20172018201920202021 5,270,6283,056,228 Actual $ - - - - - 5,458,020 - - - - - (4,673) -$ 5,453,347$ 523,616 41,170 3,164,946 418,733 - -$ 4,148,465$ - (285,124) -$ (285,124) 1,019,758 12,762,267 -$ 13,782,025 Total Revenues5,286,145 Total Expenditures3,982,565 Total Other Financing Sources(285,114) General Property TaxesTax IncrementsIntergovernmental RevenueLicenses & PermitsGambling TaxesCharges for ServicesFines and ForfeitsCable Franchise FeesRentalsDonationsSpecial AssessmentsInvestment IncomeMiscellaneousPersonnel ServicesSupplies & MaterialsOther Services & ChargesCapital OutlayDebt ServiceContingencyTransfers In / Capital ContributionsTransfers OutSale of Assets City of Roseville Sewer Fund Financial Summary RevenuesExpendituresOther Financing Sources (Uses)Net Change in Assets1,018,466Beginning Net Assets11,743,801Prior Period Adjustment-Ending Net Assets12,762,267 (Decr.) ------------------ Attachment E (800) 1,4604,260 (19,000) $ Increase% Incr. (Decrease) $ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -5.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ -4.6%$ 0.5% -1.3% 6.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 1.1%$ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 0.0% Budget $ $ (19,000)$ $ 4,920$ $ - $ Budget $ - - - - - 314,000 - - - - - - 78,500$ 392,500$ 319,660 60,900 70,235 - - -$ 450,795$ - - -$ - (58,295) 2,978,184 -$ 2,919,889 Actual $ - - - - - 333,000 - - - - - - 78,500$ 411,500$ 318,200 61,700 65,975 - - -$ 445,875$ - - -$ - (34,375) 3,012,559 -$ 2,978,184 Actual $ - - - - - 283,635 - - - - - 8,236 94,748$ 386,619$ 313,170 37,452 51,137 28,427 - -$ 430,186$ - - (11,539)$ (11,539) (55,106) 3,067,665 -$ 3,012,559 ------------ 45 9,792 (2,439) 23,96628,28073,405 (20,076) 264,474256,188927,927 20172018201920202021 Actual $ - - - - - 257,339 - - - 50,000 - 7,774 48,566$ 363,679$ 297,292 35,694 108,607 6,921 - -$ 448,514$ 1,850,000 (20,083) -$ 1,829,917 1,745,082 1,322,583 -$ 3,067,665 Total Revenues286,046 Total Expenditures367,665 Total Other Financing Sources907,851 General Property TaxesTax IncrementsIntergovernmental RevenueLicenses & PermitsGambling TaxesCharges for ServicesFines and ForfeitsCable Franchise FeesRentalsDonationsSpecial AssessmentsInvestment IncomeMiscellaneousPersonnel ServicesSupplies & MaterialsOther Services & ChargesCapital OutlayDebt ServiceContingencyTransfers InTransfers OutSale of Assets City of Roseville Golf Course Fund Financial Summary Revenues ExpendituresOther Financing Sources (Uses)Net Change in Assets826,232Beginning Net Assets496,351Prior Period Adjustment-Ending Net Assets1,322,583 (Decr.) ------------------ Attachment E 40,22011,28518,500 (253,500) $ Increase% Incr. (Decrease) $ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 2.0%$ 2.5% 0.0% 2.6% -17.5% 0.0% 0.0%$ -8.3%$ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 0.0% Budget $ $ 40,220$ $ (223,715)$ $ - $ Budget $ - - - - - 2,051,215 - - - - - - -$ 2,051,215$ 463,065 88,340 722,800 1,192,500 - -$ 2,466,705$ - (100,000) -$ (100,000) (515,490) 10,369,625 -$ 9,854,135 Actual $ - - - - - 2,010,995 - - - - - - -$ 2,010,995$ 451,780 88,340 704,300 1,446,000 - -$ 2,690,420$ - (100,000) -$ (100,000) (779,425) 11,149,050 -$ 10,369,625 Actual $ - - - - - 1,993,086 - - - - - 10,930 6,100$ 2,010,116$ 415,541 84,916 430,849 491,437 - -$ 1,422,743$ - (100,000) 11,332$ (88,668) 498,705 10,650,345 -$ 11,149,050 ------------ 102 6,917 29,83950,43913,000 379,749348,874458,461 (100,000) 20172018201920202021 1,917,805 Actual $ - - 38,600 - - 2,016,090 - - - - - 272 3,221$ 2,058,183$ 403,452 52,625 337,832 478,815 - -$ 1,272,724$ - (100,000) 1,982$ (98,018) 687,441 9,962,904 -$ 10,650,345 Total Revenues1,954,663 Total Expenditures1,237,523 Total Other Financing Sources(87,000) General Property TaxesTax IncrementsIntergovernmental RevenueLicenses & PermitsGambling TaxesCharges for ServicesFines and ForfeitsCable Franchise FeesRentalsDonationsSpecial AssessmentsInvestment IncomeMiscellaneousPersonnel ServicesSupplies & MaterialsOther Services & ChargesCapital OutlayDebt ServiceContingencyTransfers In / Capital ContributionsTransfers OutSale of Assets City of Roseville Stormwater Fund Financial Summary RevenuesExpendituresOther Financing Sources (Uses)Net Change in Assets630,140Beginning Net Assets9,332,764Prior Period Adjustment-Ending Net Assets9,962,904 (Decr.) ------------------- 1,185 (3,000) 21,580 $ Increase% Incr. (Decrease) $ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 0.0%$ 3.0% -100.0% 3.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 3.1%$ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 0.0% Budget $ $ -$ $ 19,765$ $ - $ Budget $ - - 87,500 - - 565,800 - - - - - - -$ 653,300$ 40,975 - 621,810 - - -$ 662,785$ - - -$ - (9,485) 34,516$ 25,031 Actual $ - - 87,500 - - 565,800 - - - - - - -$ 653,300$ 39,790 3,000 600,230 - - -$ 643,020$ - - -$ - 10,280 24,236$ 34,516 Actual $ - - 101,406 - - 476,507 - - - - - 122 1,298$ 579,333$ 43,751 733 559,568 - - -$ 604,052$ - (20,000) -$ (20,000) (44,719) 68,955$ 24,236 Actual $ - - 85,648 - - 427,066 - - - - - 1,448 -$ 514,162$ 32,686 420 518,485 - - -$ 551,591$ - (20,000) -$ (20,000) (57,429) 126,384$ 68,955 - ------------- (135) 1,141 84,45415,67435,782 (15,000) 356,197443,995 201620172018201920202021 Actual $ - - 87,487 - - 393,981 - - - - - (28) 42,323$ 523,763$ 31,928 711 473,419 - - -$ 506,058$ - (15,000) -$ (15,000) 2,705 123,679$ 126,384 Total Revenues456,190 Total Expenditures480,918 Total Other Financing Sources(15,000) General Property TaxesTax IncrementsIntergovernmental RevenueLicenses & PermitsGambling TaxesCharges for ServicesFines and ForfeitsCable Franchise FeesRentalsDonationsSpecial AssessmentsInvestment IncomeMiscellaneousPersonnel ServicesSupplies & MaterialsOther Services & ChargesCapital OutlayDebt ServiceContingencyTransfers InTransfers OutSale of Assets City of Roseville Recycling Fund Financial Summary RevenuesExpendituresOther Financing Sources (Uses)Net Change in Assets(39,728)Beginning Net Assets163,407Ending Net Assets123,679 (Decr.) --------------------- (2,000) $ Increase% Incr. (Decrease) $ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 0.0%$ 0.0% 0.0% -14.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ -14.0%$ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 0.0% Budget $ $ -$ $ (2,000)$ $ - $ Budget $ - - - - - - - - - - - 1,000 -$ 1,000$ - - 12,300 - - -$ 12,300$ - - -$ - (11,300) 60,506$ 49,206 Actual $ - - - - - - - - - - - 1,000 -$ 1,000$ - - 14,300 - - -$ 14,300$ - - -$ - (13,300) 73,806$ 60,506 Actual $ - - - - - - - - - - - 1,311 -$ 1,311$ - - 12,129 - - -$ 12,129$ - - -$ - (10,818) 73,806$ 62,988 -------------------- 1,3119,309 20172018201920202021 Actual $ - - - - - - - - - - - 665 -$ 665$ - - 7,955 - - -$ 7,955$ - - -$ - (7,290) 81,096$ 73,806 Total Revenues1,311 Total Expenditures9,309 Total Other Financing Sources- General Property TaxesTax IncrementsIntergovernmental RevenueLicenses & PermitsGambling TaxesCharges for ServicesFines and ForfeitsCable Franchise FeesRentalsDonationsSpecial AssessmentsInvestment IncomeMiscellaneousPersonnel ServicesSupplies & MaterialsOther Services & ChargesCapital OutlayDebt ServiceContingency (Comp Study)Transfers InTransfers OutSale of Assets City of Roseville Cemetery/Safety & Loss Control Fund Financial Summary RevenuesExpendituresOther Financing Sources (Uses)Net Change in Fund Balance(7,998)Beginning Fund Balance89,094Ending Fund Balance81,096 (Decr.) -------------------- (225,000)(225,000) $ Increase% Incr. (Decrease) $ 0.0% -22.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ -20.4%$ 0.0% 0.0% -20.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ -20.4%$ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%$ 0.0% Budget $ $ (225,000)$ $ (225,000)$ $ - $ Budget $ - 770,000 - - - - - - - - 55,000 51,000 -$ 876,000$ - - 876,000 - - -$ 876,000$ - - -$ - - 4,611,087$ 4,611,087 Actual $ - 995,000 - - - - - - - - 55,000 51,000 -$ 1,101,000$ - - 1,101,000 - - -$ 1,101,000$ - - -$ - - 4,611,087$ 4,611,087 Actual $ - 1,151,987 228,124 - - - - - - - - 140,829 -$ 1,520,940$ - - 792,802 - - -$ 792,802$ - (252,331) -$ (252,331) 475,807 4,135,280$ 4,611,087 ---------------- 306 229,937128,238 (899,085) 20172018201920202021 1,191,2023,549,683 Actual $ - 922,055 - - - - - - - - - 11,948 -$ 934,003$ - - 299,410 - - -$ 299,410$ - (186,231) -$ (186,231) 448,362 3,686,918$ 4,135,280 Total Revenues1,549,377 Total Expenditures3,549,683 Total Other Financing Sources(898,779) General Property TaxesTax IncrementsIntergovernmental RevenueLicenses & PermitsGambling TaxesCharges for ServicesFines and ForfeitsCable Franchise FeesRentalsDonationsSpecial AssessmentsInvestment IncomeMiscellaneous / Developer FeePersonnel ServicesSupplies & MaterialsOther Services & ChargesCapital OutlayDebt ServiceContingencyTransfers InTransfers OutSale of Assets / Bonds City of Roseville Tax Increment Financing Funds Financial Summary RevenuesExpendituresOther Financing Sources (Uses)Net Change in Fund Balance(2,899,085)Beginning Fund Balance6,586,003Ending Fund Balance3,686,918 Attachment F 1 Attachment F resources? What changes would you suggest for the city budget? NOTE: If you submit this form, please DO NOT mail the Roseville Resident Budget Priorities Form included in the September/October City News. Thank you! Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 2 Attachment F 3 Attachment F allocate more or fewer less! I would support a tax increase if necessary. resources? What changes would you I hope someone reads this and takes it seriously. suggest for the city budget? NOTE: If you submit this form, please DO NOT mail the Roseville Resident Budget Priorities Form included in the September/October City News. Thank you! Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 4 Attachment F 5 Attachment F think, teach common sense or address non-existing issues. That resources? What position will not solve anything, but it will actually alienate and changes would you frustrate people who are skin color blind and not racists. Let's suggest for the city move from the proverbial pat on ourselves back "We did our budget? best" and actually dig at the root of the problems by addressing the actual causes for disparities and said inequalities. NOTE: If you submit this form, please DO NOT mail the Roseville Resident Budget Priorities Form included in the September/October City News. Thank you! Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 6 Attachment F From:noreply@civicplus.com To:*RVCouncil; Dawn O"Connor; Pat Trudgeon Subject:Online Form Submittal: 2021 Roseville Resident Budget Priorities Date:Friday, August 7, 2020 10:34:55 PM Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution. 2021 Roseville Resident Budget Priorities The City Council is seeking feedback from residents about the preliminary budget and would like to hear from you. For more details on the preliminary 2021 city budget, including a link to video of the City Manager budget presentation, please visit www.cityofroseville.com/budgetinfo. Contact Information Justin First Name Chase Last Name 1779 Shryer Ave W Address 1 Field not completed. Address 2 Roseville City MN State 55113 Zip Code Field not completed. Home or Cell Phone Number Field not completed. 1. In what ways does the preliminary budget align with your priorities for Roseville? It seems like any diversity related and administration concerns 2. In what ways does can just be addressed by existing HR staff and we don't need the preliminary budget new specific roles just for diversity. Also, it's not even really clear not align with your that "equity" should be a goal or value, as opposed to "equality" priorities for Roseville? which is the actual value of our society, so I'm not convinced a Are there areas of the role dedicated to equity makes sense. budget that you would like to see the city It seems like the budget should perhaps listen to the police chief, allocate more or fewer 7 Attachment F especially during this time of rioting and increased crime and hire resources? What at least two new police officers instead of the seemingly changes would you redundant and roles of questionable value they seem to be suggest for the 2019 seeking instead city budget? NOTE: If you submit this form, please DO NOT mail the 2019 Roseville Resident Budget Priorities Card included in the September/October City News. Thank you! Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 8 Attachment F From:noreply@civicplus.com To:*RVCouncil; Dawn O"Connor; Pat Trudgeon Subject:Online Form Submittal: 2021 Roseville Resident Budget Priorities Date:Sunday, August 23, 2020 8:01:07 AM Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution. 2021 Roseville Resident Budget Priorities The City Council is seeking feedback from residents about the preliminary budget and would like to hear from you. For more details on the preliminary city budget, including a link to video of the City Manager budget presentation, please visit www.cityofroseville.com/budgetinfo. Contact Information Steve First Name Fester Last Name 701 Skillman Ave W Address 1 Field not completed. Address 2 Field not completed. City Field not completed. State Field not completed. Zip Code Field not completed. Home or Cell Phone Number I appreciate efforts to keep tax increases minimal, as well as the 1. In what ways does city's ongoing work to replace aging infrastructure and its long- the preliminary budget term sound financial planning for such needs. I'm glad to see align with your priorities continued investments in our parks, especially the natural for Roseville? resources restoration efforts. It's great to see the new interpretive signs in Reservoir Woods and Villa Park. I highly encourage the city to continue adding more interpretive signage and possibly other displays as budgets allow. I would have liked to see more compelling reasons for the City 2. In what ways does Manager's recommendation against adding the three new police the preliminary budget officers. Reading his 8/10/20 recommended budget memo, it not align with your appears these officers were not included for cost reasons, and priorities for Roseville? the fact that the police chief is retiring this year. These do not 9 Attachment F Are there areas of the seem to be compelling reasons against the chief's request, given budget that you would the documented need for these officers stated in the police like to see the city chief's request: increasing number of calls for service, allocate more or fewer decreasing case clearance rate, increasing complexity of calls for resources? What service, increasing crime rate, increasing training demands, changes would you increasing population and development. While I strongly support suggest for the city the city's ongoing efforts to diversity its police force, if you were budget? able to dedicate $110K for the new inclusion/diversity manager position, I feel you should have also dedicated money for at least one or two new officers. (I realize the "commitment to diversity" officer position was recommended to be funded.) I would also like to see more enforcement of traffic laws. I love to walk around my neighborhood, but have been avoiding arterial streets (Dale, County Rd B) this year due to what seems to be a big increase in the number of loud vehicles (modified exhaust systems, failing mufflers), speeding, and drivers blowing through stop signs. Dale Street by my house has seemed like a raceway at times. I'm hopeful things will quiet down as winter approaches, but please keep in mind that hope is usually not a viable strategy for change. My last comments are regarding engagement and communication. I appreciate the city's newsletter, both weekly email updates and the hard copy, but I think more could be done to connect with residents. For one, when a property is sold, maybe the city could mail a simple, brightly-colored postcard to the residence, with links and a QR code to the city's "new resident info" web page (and also redesign that page to put the content in the main part of the page, not just in links on the left- hand sidebar.) Perhaps colorful single-topic postcards could be used to drum up interest in other topics, such as volunteering, boulevard trees, neighborhood groups/block clubs, crime trends, etc. Don't rely on people to come to you - come directly to them instead, and U.S. Mail is still a very good way to do this. Plus, the USPS could use more business. Thank you for requesting and being receptive to citizen feedback. NOTE: If you submit this form, please DO NOT mail the Roseville Resident Budget Priorities Form included in the September/October City News. Thank you! Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 10 Attachment F 11 Attachment F a delay when in need of a Police Officer. resources? What An equity officer is not going to respond to theft at either Wal- changes would you Mart, Rosedale Center (and surrounding businesses) nor suggest for the city respond to traffic calls; which will further burden the Department budget? and subsequently negatively impact our community. I would ask you to travel to St. Paul and Minneapolis, take an honest look around at a community that is not invested in their Police Department, it is starting to show. Crime, homelessness and trash abound. Please do not take a temporary position catering to the mob and stand for the citizens of Roseville who do not want our Police Department defunded and/or redistributed. As a resident of Roseville, I am questioning City Council's appearance of optics over law and order. Look to Portland and Seattle, where City Council catered to the mob to defund/redistribute and how that has affected their communities. If the trend continues where City Council only listens to a sub-set of community members, I'm sure my tax dollars will be appreciated in another city. NOTE: If you submit this form, please DO NOT mail the 2019 Roseville Resident Budget Priorities Card included in the September/October City News. Thank you! Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 12 Attachment F 13 Attachment F Are there areas of the budget that you would like to see the city allocate more or fewer resources? What changes would you suggest for the city budget? NOTE: If you submit this form, please DO NOT mail the Roseville Resident Budget Priorities Form included in the September/October City News. Thank you! Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 14 Attachment F From:noreply@civicplus.com To:*RVCouncil; Dawn O"Connor; Pat Trudgeon Subject:Online Form Submittal: 2021 Roseville Resident Budget Priorities Date:Friday, August 21, 2020 12:48:18 AM Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution. 2021 Roseville Resident Budget Priorities The City Council is seeking feedback from residents about the preliminary budget and would like to hear from you. For more details on the preliminary city budget, including a link to video of the City Manager budget presentation, please visit www.cityofroseville.com/budgetinfo. Contact Information Alfred First Name Haugen Last Name 565 Sandhurst Drive W Address 1 Apartment 303 Address 2 Roseville City MN State 55113 Zip Code Field not completed. Home or Cell Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address Although I enjoy parks and recreation, $12,339,625 is way too 1. In what ways does much!! Let's cut the parks budget significantly, and hire more the preliminary budget police officers with the savings. align with your priorities for Roseville? I would like to see more money allocated to fixing potholes and 2. In what ways does resurfacing roads. Roseville should also spend more money on the preliminary budget law enforcement so we can hire more police per capita. not align with your priorities for Roseville? Are there areas of the budget that you would like to see the city allocate more or fewer 15 Attachment F resources? What changes would you suggest for the city budget? NOTE: If you submit this form, please DO NOT mail the Roseville Resident Budget Priorities Form included in the September/October City News. Thank you! Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 16 Attachment F From:noreply@civicplus.com To:*RVCouncil; Dawn O"Connor; Pat Trudgeon Subject:Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Date:Monday, August 10, 2020 9:36:42 AM Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution. Contact City Council Please complete this online form and submit. 2021 budget Subject Contact Information roger b hess jr Name: 1906 wagener place Address: roseville City: MN State: 55113 Zip: This form goes to the Mayor, all Councilmembers and certain City Staff. Due to the volume of emails submitted, a personal reply is not always possible. No Reply Necessary How would you prefer to be contacted? Remember to fill in the corresponding contact information. councilmember, Please Share Your Comment, Question or 1) run a bare-bones budget the next year in order to pay off all Concern outstanding debt, so you can get started on the campus master plan. delay all CIP expenditures that aren't absolutely necessary (i think all playgrounds will last an additional year, as well as other capital items). no new positions. no sewer lining. no mill and overlay. don't spend money on anything that isn't absolutely necessary in 2021. delaying the CIP program by one year should not be that big of a deal. 17 Attachment F 2) investigate to see if property owners would be better off if saint paul took over the water system. 3) investigate to see if having ramsey county take over policing roseville would be better and less expensive. if you are going to need to hire a new police chief soon, now is the time to consider this change. you rarely give any official guidance to the police dept. so what difference does it make if you have your own police chief or the sheriff in charge? there would be more flexibility in staffing hour to hour - if we need 2 squads we would have 2 squads. if we need 50 squads, we would get 50 squads. the current model is very expensive because there is no flexibility. there would be more advancement opportunities for police officers and more employees in administration, plus it would be much cheaper. you should at least explore this option! i've watched east bethel council meetings where the sheriff comes once a month and gives a detailed report of what is happening in the city - we don't get that kind of information currently, and i assume the ramsey county sheriff would do the same. 4) instead of trading in marked squads at the end of their life, keep 4 or 5 and rent them out to businesses such as wal mart, target, rosedale, motel 6, etc. to place outside their businesses. when not being rented, they could be placed on streets where speeding is a problem. much cheaper than buying speed boards! 5) see if any items in the taxpayer supported police budget could be paid with police forfeiture funds. i've seen computers, gym equipment, etc. paid from the forfeiture funds, so let's see if anything else could be paid that way in 2021. good luck! roger roger hess jr Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 18 Attachment F 19 Attachment F allocate more or fewer resources? What changes would you suggest for the 2019 city budget? NOTE: If you submit this form, please DO NOT mail the 2019 Roseville Resident Budget Priorities Card included in the September/October City News. Thank you! Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 20 Attachment F 21 Attachment F resources? What changes would you suggest for the 2019 city budget? NOTE: If you submit this form, please DO NOT mail the 2019 Roseville Resident Budget Priorities Card included in the September/October City News. Thank you! Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 22 Attachment F 23 Attachment F a delay when in need of a Police Officer. resources? What An equity officer is not going to respond to theft at either Wal- changes would you Mart, Rosedale Center (and surrounding businesses) nor suggest for the city respond to traffic calls; which will further burden the Department budget? and subsequently negatively impact our community. I would ask you to travel to St. Paul and Minneapolis, take an honest look around at a community that is not invested in their Police Department, it is starting to show. Crime, homelessness and trash abound. Please do not take a temporary position catering to the mob and stand for the citizens of Roseville who do not want our Police Department defunded and/or redistributed. As a resident of Roseville, I am questioning City Council's appearance of optics over law and order. Look to Portland and Seattle, where City Council catered to the mob to defund/redistribute and how that has affected their communities. If the trend continues where City Council only listens to a sub-set of community members, I'm sure my tax dollars will be appreciated in another city. NOTE: If you submit this form, please DO NOT mail the 2019 Roseville Resident Budget Priorities Card included in the September/October City News. Thank you! Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 24 Attachment F 25 Attachment F keeping the civil peace on the streets, not create a management resources? What position. changes would you Also we don't need another management position for Equity & suggest for the city Inclusion for $110,000. The proposal to save $275,000 by not budget? giving the police chief 3 new officers at the expense of these 2 positions is not in line with what people want. Do you read Nextdoor.com? People want more police on the streets to deal with their Black Lives Matter signs being destroyed & the breakins of cars and homes. Please listen to the people to help them feel safe again. We are in very trying times. We don't need management positions, we need service. If we cut out these 2 positions, we could still get at least 2 more officers on duty. What I would like to see is someone who actually goes around and checks on small businesses to see if they are following the Governor's mask mandate. I know a gym, not in Roseville, that actually tells it's members they DON'T need to wear a mask when they exercise there, so the members don't. The actual mandate says wear a mask inside a gym unless there is overexertion. Trainers NEED to wear masks. They aren't working out. Our number 1 priority for the rest of this year & 2021 needs to be the health of our citizens. Use money to educate businesses on healthy practices. Also, support our school district by investing in the health of our children. They will need money to keep all of us healthy. Support parents in needing to figure out how to work & have childcare with shortened school days & needing at home technology. Maybe it's time to get city wide internet service. Roseville has been known for a good education system. As a city, let's invest in that, to keep our city great. District 623 has fallen behind the Moundsview district & we are losing families. We don't need more senior housing. We need to invest in young families. NOTE: If you submit this form, please DO NOT mail the Roseville Resident Budget Priorities Form included in the September/October City News. Thank you! Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 26 Attachment F From:noreply@civicplus.com To:*RVCouncil; Dawn O"Connor; Pat Trudgeon Subject:Online Form Submittal: 2021 Roseville Resident Budget Priorities Date:Saturday, August 8, 2020 3:01:11 PM Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution. 2021 Roseville Resident Budget Priorities The City Council is seeking feedback from residents about the preliminary budget and would like to hear from you. For more details on the preliminary 2021 city budget, including a link to video of the City Manager budget presentation, please visit www.cityofroseville.com/budgetinfo. Contact Information M First Name W Last Name Field not completed. Address 1 -- Address 2 Field not completed. City Field not completed. State Field not completed. Zip Code Field not completed. Home or Cell Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address It doesn't align. In no way does this agenda benefit Roseville, it's 1. In what ways does residents or businesses. I choose to live in Roseville for it's the preliminary budget safety and way of life. By voting against adding additional law align with your priorities enforcement and instead adding a diversity officer to the budget for Roseville? does not keep Roseville a safe, clean neighborhood. For the past 2 years our property taxes have increased significantly and to what avail? Now you'd like to raise taxes again and not add to our law enforcement. No. That is not my priority as a Roseville resident. We've seen first hand in Minneapolis how limiting law enforcement destroys communities. Don't let diversity cloud your judgement on what's safe and important for ALL Roseville residents. It does not align in many ways. The government's first and ONLY 2. In what ways does 27 Attachment F job is to defend and protect. Let that be Roseville's priority as a the preliminary budget place of government. In what way does not putting money toward not align with your our law enforcement protect us? Allocating funds to things like priorities for Roseville? diversity officers will further divide and demoralize Roseville. It Are there areas of the will cause more finger pointing, friction, and hate. Stop seeing budget that you would citizens for what they look like and rather that we are all equal like to see the city Americans who happen to choose Roseville as home. allocate more or fewer resources? What Furthermore, a large part of taxes are supposed to go to changes would you infrastructure (i.e. roads, sidewalks, etc). Have you driven around suggest for the 2019 Roseville lately? Half the roads and sidewalks are a mess! city budget? Roseville's priorities according to this budget are not putting ALL residents first. That concerns me and causes me to consider some other place of residence. NOTE: If you submit this form, please DO NOT mail the 2019 Roseville Resident Budget Priorities Card included in the September/October City News. Thank you! Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 28 Attachment F 29 Attachment F here). Given out current climate and the call for police reform, I would 2. In what ways does like the community to have a better sense of what the Roseville the preliminary budget police budget pays for. Police funding is essential, and I've had not align with your nothing but great interactions with the department, but the events priorities for Roseville? around us are a reminder to acknowledge that my experience as Are there areas of the a white woman may not be the same for other community budget that you would members. Promoting ongoing transparency and community like to see the city dialogue regarding police training/expectations might further the allocate more or fewer communities ongoing support of our police. If I had my wish, I resources? What would like to see their budget include social worker/psychologists changes would you to aid in their peacekeeping mission. suggest for the city budget? NOTE: If you submit this form, please DO NOT mail the Roseville Resident Budget Priorities Form included in the September/October City News. Thank you! Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 30 Attachment F 31 Attachment F resources? What changes would you suggest for the city budget? NOTE: If you submit this form, please DO NOT mail the Roseville Resident Budget Priorities Form included in the September/October City News. Thank you! Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 32 Attachment F 33 Attachment F resources? What changes would you suggest for the 2019 city budget? NOTE: If you submit this form, please DO NOT mail the 2019 Roseville Resident Budget Priorities Card included in the September/October City News. Thank you! Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 34 Attachment F From:noreply@civicplus.com To:*RVCouncil; Dawn O"Connor; Pat Trudgeon Subject:Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Date:Monday, August 10, 2020 3:56:46 PM Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution. Contact City Council Please complete this online form and submit. In reference to the City Manager's recommended budget and the Subject recommendations of the HRIEC Contact Information Jennifer Wedel Name: 1199 Josephine Road Address: Roseville City: MN State: 55113 Zip: This form goes to the Mayor, all Councilmembers and certain City Staff. Due to the volume of emails submitted, a personal reply is not always possible. Email How would you prefer to be contacted? Remember to fill in the corresponding contact information. Hello, Please Share Your Comment, Question or I'm unable to attend the City Council meeting tonight. I read the Concern City Manager's budget recommendations in the packet, and I have been at the last 3 HRIEC meetings where they developed the 4 recommendations being presented tonight. These are my comments: 35 Attachment F 1. I applaud the City Manager and staff for prioritizing racial equity in 2021 budget recommendations. I especially support hiring a Racial Equity Coordinator and *not* hiring the 3 additional police officers requested by the Police Department. 2. I support all 4 recommendations from the HRIEC, including the recommendation to hire a racial equity consultant. I support this despite the City Manager's recommendation to add a racial equity staff person. Reasons include:A consultant can (hypothetically) be hired and begin work more quickly than a staff person. The consultant's work would serve as a foundation for the new staff person's work. The scope of work and authority of a consultant are different from those of a staff person who is beholden to the organization that hires them. 3. I would ask the City Council and City Manager to investigate opportunities to make budget adjustments in order to offer COVID 19-related support to Roseville residents, in the form of rent relief, support to Roseville students, or other. This support should be focused on equity. For example, examine whether "new parks" money could be allocated instead to rent relief and hiring tutors for secondary students living in Roseville (via a need-based application). Thank you very much for your time in reviewing my comments. Jennifer Wedel Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 36 Attachment F 37 Attachment F resources? What changes would you suggest for the city budget? NOTE: If you submit this form, please DO NOT mail the Roseville Resident Budget Priorities Form included in the September/October City News. Thank you! Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 38 Attachment F 39 Attachment F budget that you would how about just get more actual officers out there who are of like to see the city value to everyone and are all about keeping Roseville safe. allocate more or fewer resources? What Otherwise you could just save everyone $202,100 right there on changes would you those line items. suggest for the 2019 city budget? NOTE: If you submit this form, please DO NOT mail the 2019 Roseville Resident Budget Priorities Card included in the September/October City News. Thank you! Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 40 Attachment F From:noreply@civicplus.com To:*RVCouncil; Dawn O"Connor; Pat Trudgeon Subject:Online Form Submittal: 2021 Roseville Resident Budget Priorities Date:Sunday, August 9, 2020 11:21:16 PM Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution. 2021 Roseville Resident Budget Priorities The City Council is seeking feedback from residents about the preliminary budget and would like to hear from you. For more details on the preliminary 2021 city budget, including a link to video of the City Manager budget presentation, please visit www.cityofroseville.com/budgetinfo. Contact Information W First Name W Last Name Field not completed. Address 1 Field not completed. Address 2 Field not completed. City Field not completed. State Field not completed. Zip Code Field not completed. Home or Cell Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address In short, I fully support the addition of the 6 firefighters as well as 1. In what ways does improving roads and adding to the police force - not community the preliminary budget police but rather those officers that are trained to enforce law and align with your priorities order. Lets maintain safety in our community through the for Roseville? enforcement of law and order! Roseville, MN has been my home for over a decade. However, I 2. In what ways does am seeing a decline in the leadership and focus of my city. It the preliminary budget would have been my hope, that Roseville, would learn from the not align with your failed leadership of our neighboring cities such as Minneapolis priorities for Roseville? and St. Paul instead of following the same agenda. This budget Are there areas of the with the addition of 2 additional staff members (Officer: Diversity budget that you would Program & Equity & Inclusion Manager) are not only completely like to see the city unnecessary, but a point of contention that will further cause 41 Attachment F allocate more or fewer divide amongst the townspeople. The nearly 4% levey tax resources? What proposal is ludacris. My recommendation is to follow the changes would you guidance of the police department and add the additional officers suggest for the 2019 and eliminate the aforementioned Diversity & Equity Manager city budget? roles. Pending the cities biased leadership and spending, there are several residents who may no longer call Roseville their home... NOTE: If you submit this form, please DO NOT mail the 2019 Roseville Resident Budget Priorities Card included in the September/October City News. Thank you! Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 42 Attachment F 43 Attachment G 2021PreliminaryLevyImpactstoHomesteadedSingleFamilyProperties DependingonEstimatedMarketValues υЋЉЉͲЉЉЉğƌǒĻķIƚƒĻƭƷĻğķĻķ{CwĻƭźķĻƓƷźğƌtƩƚƦĻƩƷǤ CityManagerRecommendedBudgetmonthlyFinanceCommissionAlternative 20202021$Chg.20202021$Chg. PropertyTaxLevy:City$63.58$61.75$(1.83)$63.58$62.58$(1.00) PropertyTaxLevy:EDA$1.42$1.30$(0.12)$1.42$1.30$(0.12) UtilityRates$60.60$63.80$3.20$60.60$63.80$3.20 CombinedTotal$125.60$126.85$1.25$125.60$127.68$2.08 υЋБЉͲЏЉЉaĻķźğƓğƌǒĻķIƚƒĻƭƷĻğķĻķ{CwĻƭźķĻƓƷźğƌtƩƚƦĻƩƷǤ CityManagerRecommendedBudgetmonthlyFinanceCommissionAlternative 20202021$Chg.20202021$Chg. PropertyTaxLevy:City$86.49$83.96$(2.53)$86.49$85.04$(1.45) PropertyTaxLevy:EDA$1.93$1.77$(0.16)$1.93$1.77$(0.16) UtilityRates$60.60$63.80$3.20$60.60$63.80$3.20 CombinedTotal$149.02$149.53$0.51$149.02$150.61$1.59 υЌЉЉͲЉЉЉğƌǒĻķIƚƒĻƭƷĻğķĻķ{CwĻƭźķĻƓƷźğƌtƩƚƦĻƩƷǤ CityManagerRecommendedBudgetmonthlyFinanceCommissionAlternative 20202021$Chg.20202021$Chg. PropertyTaxLevy:City$95.42$92.67$(2.75)$95.42$93.83$(1.58) PropertyTaxLevy:EDA$2.12$1.94$(0.18)$1.42$1.30$(0.12) UtilityRates$60.60$63.80$3.20$60.60$63.80$3.20 CombinedTotal$158.14$158.41$0.27$157.43$158.93$1.50 υЍЎЉͲЉЉЉğƌǒĻķIƚƒĻƭƷĻğķĻķ{CwĻƭźķĻƓƷźğƌtƩƚƦĻƩƷǤ CityManagerRecommendedBudgetmonthlyFinanceCommissionAlternative 20202021$Chg.20202021$Chg. PropertyTaxLevy:City$139.92$135.83$(4.08)$139.92$137.58$(2.33) PropertyTaxLevy:EDA$3.11$2.85$(0.26)$1.42$1.30$(0.12) UtilityRates$60.60$63.80$3.20$60.60$63.80$3.20 CombinedTotal$203.63$202.48$(1.15)$201.93$202.68$0.75 9ƭƷźƒğƷĻķğǣLƒƦğĭƷʹ/ƚƒƒĻƩĭźğƌ CityManagerRecommendedBudgetFinanceCommissionAlternative ValueofProperty20202021$Chg.20202021$Chg. 500,0003,5293,321(208)3,5293,364(166) 750,0005,4375,117(321)5,4375,182(255) 1,000,0007,3456,912(433)7,3457,001(344) 2,000,00014,97614,093(883)14,97614,274(702) 3,000,00022,60721,274(1,334)22,60721,547(1,060) Attachment H Finance Commission Minutes September 8, 2020 Î Draft Minutes Page 3 of 10 91 Commissioner Bester indicated he was a little confused about the Communications budget 92 concerns. He explained he went back to the audited financial statements to find there was a loss 93 in the Communications program but there were transfers out of one hundred forty-one thousand 94 and he wondered what that amount was for. 95 96 Ms. Pietrick explained the transfer was done because the capital for 2020 was moved out of the 97 Communication budget and over to the Facilities budget and as a result the Communication Fund 98 exceeded its fund balance targets. Based on excess Fund Balance Policy, that money was 99 transferred into the Cash Reserve Fund. 100 101 Commissioner Bester explained on page 49, the Cash Balance on the chart is not the same as the 102 numerical data in the IT Support Equipment. 103 104 Ms. Pietrick indicated she would check on that because it might be a typo. 105 106 Chair Murray invited Ms. Cynthia White to speak. 107 108 Ms. Cynthia White wondered if there is ever a confidence analysis done on the CIP projections. 109 If she went back five years to see what is projected now, how close would the projections be to 110 actual. 111 112 Ms. Pietrick indicated she did not have an answer for that. 113 114 Chair Murray indicated he was not aware of any sort of analysis. 115 116 Ms. White thought twenty to thirty years out was hard to project so assumed the normal look 117 ahead is two to three years. 118 119 Ms. Pietrick indicated the normal look is three to five years. 120 121 Commissioner Bester moved, seconded by Commissioner Davies to recommend approval of the 122 2021-2040 Capital Improvement Plan & Tentative Funding Strategies. The motion carried 123 unanimously. 124 125 126 Establish a Recommendation on the 2021 City Manager Recommended Budget and Tax 127 Levy 128 129 Finance Director Pietrick stated the 2021 City Manager Recommended Budget and Tax Levy 130 was presented at the August 10, 2020 City Council meeting. No formal Commission action is 131 required; however, the Commission may want to submit guidance or recommendations to the 132 City Council regarding the City ManagerÓs recommended budget and tax levy. 133 134 Chair Murray explained he had a discussion with the City Manager regarding the new position 135 and forwarded an email to the Commission on this item. Attachment H Finance Commission Minutes September 8, 2020 Î Draft Minutes Page 4 of 10 136 137 Commissioner Reif noted on page 17 of the City ManagerÓs proposed budget, he would prefer to 138 see money left in for three new Police Officers. He thought that given the recommendation came 139 from the outgoing Chief of Police and the new Chief of Police, he would think had some input in 140 that, he was inclined to go along with what their recommendation is as far as adding the new 141 Police Officers. 142 143 Commissioner Sagisser asked what the reasoning for this was. 144 145 Ms. Pietrick believed the City Manager recognizes there is a need for the officers but to reduce 146 the tax levy increase he made the decision to cut the police officers. 147 148 Commissioner Davies indicated she seemed to remember that this decision was going to be 149 deferred until there was a new Chief of Police. 150 151 Commissioner Reif explained given that the lady who became the new Chief of Police effective st 152 September 1, has been on the force for twenty-three years and he would assume that there was 153 some discussion between the outgoing Chief and the incoming Chief to agree on what was 154 appropriate as far as the proposed 2020-2021 budget. 155 156 Chair Murray asked if any analysis was done. He thought if there were fewer police officers 157 there would be more overtime. He thought the City may not be saving all that much money. 158 159 Ms. Pietrick thought the analysis was that based on the call out volume the Police Department 160 has, the department does feel the need for the additional officers but the tradeoff is there would 161 be more overtime without the added officers. 162 163 Chair Murray explained he was also told by Chief Mathwig about the Walmart situation where 164 Walmart was paying for an officer to be present, but he believed that agreement has expired, 165 which creates more need. 166 167 Commissioner Bester explained he would like to get a sense of comfort from the Police Chief 168 about this. 169 170 Chair Murray indicated he was looking at the Equity and Inclusion Manager and he was really 171 not sure what that position is supposed to do. He noted City Manager Trudgeon told him it is not 172 an Inspector General type position and from the description it does not sound like it is not that 173 much of a community outreach either. He explained he was not quite sure where that position 174 fits in. He recapped the email discussion between the City Manager and himself. He noted he 175 was not sure what this new role would be. He wanted to be cautious about adding new payroll to 176 the City without clearly defined ideas about what the roles will be because it is expensive. 177 178 Commissioner Sagisser thought according to the email Chair Murray forwarded to him about the 179 conversation, it sounds like this person is advising in efforts for equity and inclusion. 180 Attachment H Finance Commission Minutes September 8, 2020 Î Draft Minutes Page 5 of 10 181 Chair Murray thought this might be better handled by a consultant to figure out what the City 182 wants to do before a person is added to the City payroll. 183 184 Commissioner Davies thought the Commission could add a recommendation that prior to adding 185 any personnel that a consultant be involved to define the role, so it is clear exactly what that 186 person is doing. This could still be included in the budget but with the caveat that there needs to 187 be more definition. 188 189 Commissioner Sagisser thought from his understanding that was already the case, there would be 190 a consultant hired first to advise on the position, which is probably why the definition is a little 191 weak at this phase. He thought there is a desire for the position and the City is trying to make 192 sure the correct person is hired for the position. 193 194 Ms. Pietrick indicated that was correct and the consultant RFP is going out in the next week. 195 196 Chair Murray thought that sounded better. He suggested a motion with two revisions that 197 included a consultant will be used to define the position of the Equity and Inclusion Manager and 198 the second would be to strongly recommend consulting with the Police Chief over possible 199 increase in the number of positions. 200 201 Commissioner Sagisser asked if the Commission needed to make a recommended motion on this 202 item. 203 204 Chair Murray thought the recommended budget is going to the Council and there are some 205 deadlines with setting tax levies. 206 207 Ms. Pietrick indicated the expectation is that the Finance Commission recommendation would be th 208 presented to the Council at the September 14 meeting by Chair Murray and then the Council 209 will be deliberating the budget the following week and setting the preliminary levy and the City th 210 must have a preliminary levy set no later than September 30. 211 212 Commissioner Sagisser asked if the Commission could recommend the levy level but request 213 further information on details for the budget. 214 215 Chair Murray thought that would put the Commission in the position later on, if the Commission 216 recommends some money get spent elsewhere the City Council will ask the Commission what 217 items would need to be cut. He thought something could be done but was not sure the 218 Commission would be in the position to address that. 219 220 Commissioner Bester asked if the Commission has essentially endorsed the City Manager 221 recommendations by moving the budget forward. 222 223 Chair Murray indicated that was correct. 224 Attachment H Finance Commission Minutes September 8, 2020 Î Draft Minutes Page 6 of 10 225 Ms. Pietrick indicated that has not happened yet. The action the Commission previously took 226 was strictly on the CIP. 227 228 Chair Murray explained he misunderstood the question. Any recommendation the Commission 229 would be making on the budget would either be an endorsement or not an endorsement of the 230 City ManagerÓs budget. 231 232 Ms. Pietrick explained if the Commission feels strongly about something the Commission can 233 make a recommendation to the Council. 234 235 Chair Murray invited the Commissioners to come to the City Council meeting to discuss Police 236 Officers. 237 238 Commissioner Reif indicated he would be there. 239 240 Ms. Pietrick noted the City Council meetings are virtual starting at 6:00 p.m. 241 242 Commissioner Reif asked if the Commission could recommend most of the City ManagerÓs 243 budget but would like to see three Police Officers added for the request made by the Chief of 244 Police. 245 246 Chair Murray indicated the Commission can make any recommendation it wants. 247 248 Commissioner Sagisser explained he did not have enough information to recommend the 249 proposed budget either way on that specific issue and did not feel there is enough information 250 either way. 251 252 Commissioner Reif thought where things are at in the Country and given that the Chief of Police 253 made the recommendation, he was in favor of adding the three Police Officers. 254 255 Commissioner Davies indicated when Ms. Pietrick explained the preliminary levy, after th 256 September 30 can be reduced but it cannot be increased. She thought it would make sense to 257 include the three officers and request some further information from the new Police Chief, the 258 need for that to be reviewed at the next Commission meeting. 259 260 Commissioner Reif explained if the timetable is looked at it shows adoption of this on September st 261 21, which means there is not another chance for the Finance Commission to review this again 262 before that adoption. 263 264 Ms. Pietrick indicated that was correct. 265 266 Chair Murray explained the Finance Commission could recommend three police officers be 267 added to the budget and then next month after review, that police officers could be removed if 268 need be or could be reduced in numbers. 269 Attachment H Finance Commission Minutes September 8, 2020 Î Draft Minutes Page 7 of 10 270 Commissioner Reif thought the three police officers should be added into the budget and get 271 more information from the new Police Chief. 272 273 Commissioner Barclay thought from his own perspective, looking at the height of crime and all 274 of the things happening, having additional Police Officers added to what the City has makes a lot 275 of sense but he thought having more information as to why from the current Police Chief would 276 be helpful. 277 278 Commissioner Reif moved, seconded by Commissioner Davies, to accept the City Manager 279 Recommended Budget and Tax Levy adding three Police Officer positions be added to the City 280 ManagerÓs proposed 2021 budget. 281 282 Chair Murray wondered if it would be wiser to not specify a number, maybe revise to say, Ðas 283 recommended by the Police ChiefÑ. 284 285 Commissioner Reif indicated he would be agreeable to that. 286 287 Ms. Pietrick thought the corresponding tax increase for the Police Officers should be added to 288 the motion as well. 289 290 Commissioner Sagisser thought maybe the recommendation would be to simply set the budget at 291 the level that would pay for those officers and request further evaluation. 292 293 Chair Murray asked if Commissioner Sagisser would like to make an amendment to the motion. 294 295 Commissioner Sagisser offered his previous statement as a friendly amendment. 296 297 Commissioner Reif indicated he would like to leave his motion the way it was. 298 299 Chair Murray indicated before he voted he hesitated to send a recommendation to the City 300 Council that is not strongly endorsed by them. As a matter of fact, as far as he knew the 301 Commission has never sent a recommendation that was not unanimously supported. 302 303 Commissioner Bester indicated he continued to feel at a loss without a definitive statement from 304 the Chief of Police. 305 306 Commissioner Sagisser explained that is why he worded his revision the way he did because he 307 did not have an opinion and there is not enough information for him to make a decision. He 308 thought a more definitive statement is needed. 309 310 The motion failed due to a split vote. Ayes: Reif, Barclay, Davies. Nay: Bester, Sagisser, 311 Murray. 312 313 Chair Murray explained he would like to craft a motion in order to get a unanimous decision and 314 would help present the proposal to the Council if the Commission would all agree. Attachment H Finance Commission Minutes September 8, 2020 Î Draft Minutes Page 8 of 10 315 316 Commissioner Davies moved to accept the City Manager Proposed Budget with the addition of 317 three Police Officer positions going through the Preliminary Levy setting pending further 318 information from the Chief of Police and City Manager and action at the October Finance 319 Commission meeting. 320 321 Chair Murray asked Commissioner Sagisser if the new motion would be acceptable for him to 322 second it. 323 324 Commissioner Sagisser indicated he would be uncomfortable specifically recommending three 325 more officers without understanding, with what is going on in the world, exactly what the reason 326 was, and the City ManagerÓs definition was a little light. 327 328 Commissioner Davies asked what kind of a motion Commissioner Sagisser would be 329 comfortable with. 330 331 Commissioner Sagisser explained he would be comfortable accepting the initial levy level to be 332 able to fund the three additional officers pending further explanation of what those officers are 333 needed for or why the Police Chief would recommend them. 334 335 Commissioner Davies thought that was what her motion stated. 336 337 Commissioner Sagisser indicated he did not say he was recommending three Police Officers. He 338 wondered if that made sense to the Commission. 339 340 Chair Murray thought Commissioner SagissersÓ recommendation would be setting the budget at 341 a level to fund three Police Officers. 342 343 Commissioner Sagisser indicated it would be the initial budget because it could be lowered. 344 345 Chair Murray indicated he understood and thought it would be based on pending explanation 346 further justification from the Police Chief as to needs and usage of these officers. 347 348 Commissioner Sagisser concurred. 349 350 Commissioner Davies indicated that was basically what she meant in her motion. 351 352 Commissioner Bester indicated he could support that. 353 354 Commissioner Sagisser moved, seconded by Commissioner Davies, to recommend to the City 355 Council setting the initial preliminary levy, sufficient to fund the additional officers but pending 356 further justification from the Police Chief with regard to the need for the three officers and the 357 City Manager as to what the full justification was to cut them. The motion carried 358 unanimously. 359 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: September 21, 2020 Item No.: 7.c Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Civic Campus Master Plan Update 1 B ACKGROUND th 2 On January 6, 2020, the City Council approved a Professional Services Agreement with BKV 3 Group for the Civic Campus Master Plan. 4 The Master Plan project was started with the realization that there are long-term space needs, 5 particularly for the License Center and the Maintenance Facility, that will eventually need to be 6 addressed. Council members and City staff recognized that this shouldn’t be done in a vacuum 7 looking at only those particular needs, and any action to address that should be done with some 8 overall plan for the entire campus, now referred to as the Civic Campus. It is important that an 9 action to address the License Center long term not prohibit or limit action to address the 10 Maintenance Facility needs, and vice versa. It was also important to review what future needs may 11 occur at City Hall, and if any of those needs could be addressed at the same time that we address the 12 other facilities’ needs. 13 It is important to note that there are no planned major improvements or expansions in the City’s 14 Capital Improvement Plan or any other planning document. The City is currently spending over 15 $60,000 per year for various leased space to address seasonal storage needs. At some point, the City 16 would like to address those needs with City-owned space. With the new Fairview Community 17 Center, the City has also lost storage for recreational activities and affiliated association storage. 18 These are additional needs that should be addressed long term. 19 Once this plan is completed, staff will eventually start planning for some capital improvements and 20 expansions, but only after considerable discussions with the City Council and the public. A major 21 component of those discussions would be how to fund those improvements. 22 P ROJECT U PDATE th 23 On May 18, 2020, Council received a presentation with the first preliminary concepts. City staff 24 and BKV took feedback from that meeting and compiled additional concepts for review and th 25 comment by the Council which were presented to the Council at their July 20 meeting. 26 A public engagement effort was also started in late June with direct mailings to residents adjacent to 27 the Civic Campus and an online survey for the general public to complete. The survey used very 28 general questions to first familiarize the public with the concept of the Civic Campus and to generate 29 general feedback from the public. Over 150 people completed the survey. The results of the survey th 30 were presented at the July 20 meeting. 31 Since July, staff has been working with the consultant to refine the previously presented concepts 32 and also to conduct a second round of on-line engagement for the project. The online engagement is 33 highlighted in the presentation attached. Page 1 of 2 34 A walking tour was also setup on campus to try to capture people walking through or around the 35 campus and inform them of the master plan project and encourage them to provide input. 36 Residents and businesses around the campus also received a direct mailing in order to direct them to 37 the project website and the interactive website. Staff has had direct communications with business 38 owners in the retail center, the VFW and management at the Lexington Apartments complex. 39 The website will remain active until the final draft is presented to the City Council. Any additional 40 input will be incorporated into the report and reported to the Council at that next touchpoint. 41 The concepts presented in July have been refined and analyzed for staging benefits and costs. The 42 costs being presented are very conceptual costs and are intended to provide a budgetary and high- 43 end cost. It should also be noted that with the exception of reusing a portion of the existing 44 Maintenance Facility and some cost savings with that proposition, the costs of the individual 45 components (i.e. building a new License Center or a vehicle storage area) are essentially equal 46 between each concept. 47 The staging opportunities and challenges will be highlighted in the presentation along with the 48 overall costs of various components of the master plan. 49 It is anticipated a final report will be presented to the Council sometime in November. 50 F INANCIAL I MPACTS 51 Preliminary cost estimates for the various concepts are being presented with the refined concepts. 52 The cost of constructing a new Maintenance Facility, as shown within this master plan, will likely be 53 somewhere between $23-29 million. The License Center and VFW could cost upwards of $10 54 million (the VFW has a slightly higher cost than the License Center due to the kitchen and other 55 specialty space). Proposed improvements to the City Hall could be as high as $11 million. 56 These costs include some fairly significant “soft costs” such as design, contingencies, etc. that 57 should be able to be refined, and hopefully reduced, during an actual final design process. 58 There are currently no planned improvements or capital expenditures as a result of this study. 59 S TAFF R ECOMMENDATION 60 Receive an update on the City Campus Master Plan from staff and BKV Group and provide 61 feedback on the information presented. 62 R EQUESTED C OUNCIL A CTION 63 Receive an update on the City Campus Master Plan from staff, BKV Group and Zan Associates and 64 provide feedback on the information presented. Prepared by: Marc Culver, Public Works Director Attachments: A: Presentation B: Public Comments Page 2 of 2 CITY OF ROSEVILLE CIVIC CAMPUS MASTER PLAN STUDY CITY OF ROSEVILLE CIVIC CAMPUS MASTER PLAN STUDY CITY OF ROSEVILLE CIVIC CAMPUS MASTER PLAN STUDY CITY OF ROSEVILLE CIVIC CAMPUS MASTER PLAN STUDY CITY OF ROSEVILLE CIVIC CAMPUS MASTER PLAN STUDY CITY OF ROSEVILLE CIVIC CAMPUS MASTER PLAN STUDY CITY OF ROSEVILLE CIVIC CAMPUS MASTER PLAN STUDY CITY OF ROSEVILLE CIVIC CAMPUS MASTER PLAN STUDY CITY OF ROSEVILLE CIVIC CAMPUS MASTER PLAN STUDY CITY OF ROSEVILLE CIVIC CAMPUS MASTER PLAN STUDY CITY OF ROSEVILLE CIVIC CAMPUS MASTER PLAN STUDY CITY OF ROSEVILLE CIVIC CAMPUS MASTER PLAN STUDY CITY OF ROSEVILLE CIVIC CAMPUS MASTER PLAN STUDY st WASHINGTON, DC MINNEAPOLIS HANOI, VIETNAM DALLAS CHICAGO Roseville Civic Campus Master Plan Social Pinpoint - Data Extract 09/15/20 Ideas Map: Comments on Existing I feel as if the licensing center needs to be either moved into a larger building, be remodeled or both. Its small and I personally don't feel that it is equipped to continue servicing the ever growing Roseville Area. I think the community could benefit from the installation of an outdoor bars facility. Where people can workout with out weights or gym membership. Focusing on calisthenics. Kids can play, and athletes/general public can workout! Comments on Option A1 good traffic flow, nice green space, nice design. (down-voted by one other) my sister and I live in the Lexington apartments and love the. playground and green area and baseball field across the street from our apartment. putting a huge obtrusive bldg there would devastate our view. I am deeply saddened by this plan. the park is used by children ALL DAY LONG1 Comments on Option A2 i really don't like any of the plans, but A2 reusing the public works buildings makes the most sense. this is going to be a very expensive project no matter what design is chosen. instead of trying to shoehorn public works into the space to the north, the city should buy the 5/6 residential properties to the west of veterans park so there is enough room to do the project properly. the cost to purchase those properties would be a tiny fraction of the overall cost of the project. (up-voted by one other) maybe the most cost efficient (remodel vs new construction), maybe not. design flow 2nd best, still appears to not provide as much green space for community outside (like the shoreview community center) Comments on Option B compact maintenance facility, good location access for license center, vfw and generous green space, at first look the best design flow, least disruption to area, Comments on Option C This is my least favorite option. It makes the green space less useful being divided, long, and narrow, and it make the maintenance building seem like the center of everything. Also you lose thru road access. The other 3 options are better. (up-voted by 2 others) I like this concept. Even though I often take Woodhill on my way through Roseville breaking up that traffic by putting the City Civic Center in the middle of Woodhill it does decrease the traffic thru that neighborhood. I think that is helpful for many in that area. I am sad to see the park, athletic space and playground being lost in all of the proposals. I feel like the green space around the VFW and License Center in Plan B is very nice. In my mind it helps make up for Veteran's Park I live on the east side of Lexington between Woodhill and C2. Although it would be nice to lessen traffic on Woodhill, I believe this option would increase traffice on C2. People already drive too fast on these roads. C2 already has blind spots because of the incline heading east. (up-voted by one other) no green space, vfw in terrible location, dead end street a traffic nightmare, disjointed design Ideas Wall: Serious Concern What costs are associated with each option? o The Master Plan consultant is developing some cost estimates for each of the concepts/elements that will be presented to the City Council on September 21st. Leave the campus as is, scrap your BIG plans. Live within your means. No more tax hikes, PERIOD. Could we also see the cost of the consultant? Big Change Has there been a thought about connecting the VFW to the Skating and Banquet Center? A lot of opportunities for both venues to offer food and drink and space for larger events. The movement in and out of the banquet center is already very congested. Perhaps the connection of the two venues could open up the space more. Opportunities for both: - Wedding banquets - Sports banquets with onsite food service (VFW) available. - Space for live music - Live broadcasting for hockey events or Oval Future The Civic Campus should include a community center that welcomes all residents of Roseville- young and old. It should include a walking track, a water park, and could work well with the skating and banquet centers. An Arts Center, visual and performing, should be considered. It could display and promote the art of local artists and provide a concert venue like the Ames Center in Burnsville. We lack a similar center in our area of the cities but don't lack for talented local artisans. As the surveys have shown, one of Roseville's biggest strengths is its parks. Understanding that some of these improvements are unavoidable, this Civic Campus plan should be done as economically as possible, with the thought that the city has other priorities such as its parks system that need to be placed first. Please do not spend on any bells or whistles for the civic center. Just do what's required as economically as possible. City hall is not a destination for most Roseville residents. Value SCRAP THIS PROJECT. Activities One model that I think has done this well is St. Anthony Village which has its city hall connected to a central park, awesome play ground, and schools. I believe the library is across the street. I don't think Roseville should try to copy it exactly, but the final civic plan should find a way to complement the awesome parks nearby: Howard Johnson, Central. Roseville should absolutely not consider removing Howard Johnson. Survey: Q1-How often do you visit the City of Roseville's Civic Campus? Frequently (at least once per week)(5) Occasionally (at least onceper month)(10) Rarely (at least once per year)(7) Never(0) Q2-How much time do you spend at City of Roseville's Civic Campus when you visit? Less than 30 minutes(12) 1 hour(5) 1-3 hours(5) 3-5 hours hour(0) 5 hours or more(1) Q3-How do you travel to the City of Rosevilles Civic Campus? (check all that apply) Bus(0) Car(19) Bike(5) Walk/run(9) Other(0) Q4-Why do you visit City of Roseville's Civic Campus? (check all that apply) -Permits and Licensing Permits and Licensing(14) City Hall(6) VFW(7) Ice Rink(11) Park(12) Paying a bill(3) Other(9) Q5-Which concept do you prefer? Concept A1: Civic Center Campus Green(2) Concept A2: Reuse of Existing Buildings(10) Concept B: License Center on Lexington(10) Concept C: Rerouting Woodhill(0) Q6-Why do you prefer that concept? Concept A1: Civic Center Campus Green There is plenty of parking for the license center, for one. I like the A2 option as well, but it does have less parking. Concept A2: Reuse of Existing Buildings I don't like the idea of wasting/demolishing buildings when they could be renovated instead. I think it could save money while also keeping the nostalgia and history of Roseville intact. Keeps costs down Appears to be lowest cost It would depend on cost of repurposing buildings, but in general I favor conserving structures as more environmentally sound. I prefer the resuse of existing buildings to be fiscally conscientious. I also like that the license center and other city building are closer together allowing for more ease of access between them all. There is also green space which I appreciate but not too much as to deterwalking between buildings. Boy, these maps are awfully small and hard to read or figure out in this survey! So, I am not fully confident of my choice. I support a plan that has adequate parking for the license center and VFW so that the ice arena will not be negatively affected. Parking is very tough in the winter with multiple practices happening inside and out. I worry that people from outside roseville will not be aware of all the ice arena traffic and that might present a safety hazard. That alsolooks like a huge maintenance space. But it is hard to tell on these small maps. I also worry about all the additional traffic dumping on to county road c. Right now, I sometimes wait several minutes to make a left after hockey practice. This will make the situation worse. will a traffic light be installed? City taxes are high enough cut back on spending existing buildings work well Concept B: License Center on Lexington I don't prefer any of these concepts and believe what we have presently is good enough. If you are taking out Veterans Park then it should be replaced with a park. Rerouting Woodhill would be a terrible idea. I like that the VFW is separate. I like the larger green space. Provides an opportunity for a gathering space for events. Most green space, seems like less space dedicated to parking I like the potential of the green space. It also makes everything visible from outside roads which helps with directions. My second choice would be A1 for the same reasons. Probably my choice, but does the city now own the VFW? Are they condemning the property so the city can take it? Maximal green space near the rink Concept C: Rerouting Woodhill Q7-In a few concepts, the License Center is relocated across Woodhill. Is it more useful to have this facility closer, and within easier walking distance, of City Hall? Yes(2) No(11) Doesn't make a difference to me(10) Q8-Several of the concepts eliminate Veterans Park in order to relocate the Maintenance Facility. New public green space is provided at the heart of the civic campus. How do you feel about this change? Positive(9) Neutral(5) Negative(9) Q9-Concept C showsWoodhill Drive terminating before it reaches Lexington. Traffic would be routed to Civic Center Drive and then access County Road C to then go east or west. How much would this impact you? A lot(11) Somewhat(7) Not at all(5) Q10-Several of the concepts relocate the VFW to a new location. If you visit the VFW, which is most important to you? Being close to the Skating Center(1) Easy access from Woodhill(7) Easy access from Lexington(2) I don't visit the VFW(12) Q11-Please provide any other comments you have on the proposed planning options. I ask that you try and keep spending in check. Like everyone else, I want a nice and beautiful Civic Campus, but I want to avoid seeing any debt or super substantial funds going to something above and beyond what is necessary and nice. Also, I ask that the renovations are kept as apolitical as possible in terms of artwork, building names, etc. There is so much out there that divides people, and it would be nice to find a place where everyone can escape the politics and division and just simply relax. I think so far, this is a waste of money. What would happen to the remaining businesses in the strip mall area? Where would the Dance Studio be located? I would love to see space for a few private businesses to create a more welcoming atmosphere like a restaurant or two. I think it's terrible that the city is taking away one of the very few fields it allows the Roseville Youth Girls Fastpitch Association teams to use without providing a comparable replacement option. I would like to see lexington focused more on enabling people walking/biking to the civic campus to do so safely and comfortably. How great would it be for a family park at Central Park, then bike over to City Hall? I definitely don't favor the option that includes rerouting Woodhill. I remember the ruckus a few years back when C2 was "connected." Rerouting Woodhill would increase traffic through the residential area that C2 bisects, to its detriment. My second favorite concept isA1. I dislike concept C because I feel rerouting an entire street seems like too much and is there really a need for that. Leave it where it is Like the park next to vfw to eat and play at when getting their food and all the extra space for them to do other things Not liking the lost of existing park space. Q12-What else would you like us to know? What are the proposed time frame for the development? People can work from home so their space could Be repurposed and save some money on building new. More walking paths, add sidewalks to woodhill, lots of trees planted. Water feature possible? Will the cost of each plan be attached anytime soon? Cost of the different options, including environmental as well as financial. I would like the city to take budgeting and fiscal responsibility. I dont feel the city should have purchased the license center building. I think we could have done without purchasing it Can you post these plans outside the ice arena entrance so more people -who actually use the facilities -can see them? and thus provide input. Its fine how it is. Stop wasting money and keep our police funded and on the streets. It is a Roseville icon leave it there Roseville contains finite space yet the city and departments seem to be expanding at faster rate. Multi family properties are outnumbering single family homes. Q18 -What is your age? Under 18(0) 18-24 years old(1) 25-34 years old(3) 35-44 years old(3) 45-54 years old(3) Over 55 years old(8) I prefer not to say(2) Q19 -What is your gender? Male(10) Female(10) Prefer not to say(1) Other Q21 -What is your ethnicity (race)? White(17) Hispanic or Latino Black or African American Native American or American Indian Somali Asian/Pacific Islander(1) I prefer not to say(2) Other REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date:September 21, 2020 Item No.: .d Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Consider Co-hosting Discussion Series on Race with Community Partners 1 B ACKGROUND 2 The Human Rights, Inclusion and Engagement Commission (HRIEC)has beenasked to co-host a 3 virtual discussion series on race and racism with community partners in 2020-2021 by the City of 4 Shoreview. After discussion at their September meeting, the commission is recommending that the 5 Council consider this partnership as a way to engage and educate residents. 6 7 The discussion series would focus on race and how it impacts different areas of our communities. 8 The series is designed to serve as an educational tool as well as an opportunity for community 9 discussion on topics as it relates to race. The Shoreview Human Rights Commission and staff have 10 put together the following series/sessions (below). It is anticipated that one to two sessions would 11 occur yet in 2020 with the remainder of the sessions being held monthly in 2021. 12 13 To give you an idea the outline of the first session, the proposal from the Theater of Public Policy is 14 attached. 15 16 Topics for Discussion Series: 17 Let’s get uncomfortable: A space to talk about race and being anti-racist by the Theater of 18 Public Policy ($1,000 for 25 people and $1,450 for 40 people) 19 Race and Policing: by Duchess Harris, American Studies professor at Macalester University 20($500 per hour) 21 Race and Employment: (potential speaker from Ramsey County) 22 Race and Voting: by the League of Women Voters 23 Racism in Real Estate: by RETHOS ($1,750) 24 25 Community partners identified include the Shoreview Human Rights Commission, and Ramsey 26 County Library- Shoreview. 27 28 The general outline of the series include having a speaker present information, with an opportunity 29 for a question and answer period with the speaker at the end of the event. As mentioned, the event 30 would be hosted virtually. 31 32 P OLICY O BJECTIVE 33 As part of the scope of duties and functions of the Human Rights, Inclusion and Engagement 34 Commission, under the topic of ENGAGE, the commission may engage residents through city 35 council – approved programs, events and projects that support the commission’s purpose. 36 Page 1 of 2 37 B UDGET I MPLICATIONS 38 The cost of any speakers would be split between the City of Shoreview, Ramsey County Library and 39 City of Roseville. Given that the series is being held virtually, there should be no other costs 40 associated with the series. Anticipated cost for the City of Roseville would be between $1,500 - 41 $2,000 for the entire series. 42 43 S TAFF R ECOMMENDATION 44 Staff recommends partnering with the City of Shoreview and Ramsey County Library to hold a 45 series of speakers and discussions focusing on race. Staff also recommends funds for the city’s 46 portion of speaker costs be funded from the 2020 allocation for an HRIEC event. 47 48 R EQUESTED C OUNCIL A CTION 49 Motion to approve co-hosting a discussion series with the City of Shoreview and Ramsey County 50 Library and authorizing up to $2,000 for costs associated with the event. 51 Prepared by: Rebecca Olson, Assistant City Manager Attachments: A. Theater of Public Policy Proposal Page 2 of 2 Attachment A Attachment A REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: September 21, 2020 Item No.: 7.e Department ApprovalCity Manager Approval Item Description:Consider Adoption of a Resolution Electing to Participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program Under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act 1 B ACKGROUND 2 At the Roseville Economic Development Authority (REDA) meeting on September 21, 2020,the 3 board reviewed the affordable and life-cycle housing goals that were established by the Metropolitan 4 Counciland made part of the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan. DecadeAffordable Housing GoalLife-cycle Housing Goal 2011-2020131-201200-500 2021-203078-142400 5 If Roseville wants tocontinue toparticipate in Metropolitan Council’sgrant programsthrough LCA, 6 then the City must formally adopt the above goalsby resolution. Goals are based upon Metropolitan 7 Council Methodology (Attachment A). Based upon review and recommendation of the REDA, City 8 staff is recommending the Council adopt the 2021-2030 affordable and life-cycle housing goals. 9 There is no risk to the City if the goals are not metand the City can withdraw from the program at any 10 time. 11 P OLICY O BJECTIVE 12 The Housing Chapter of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan supports the identified affordable and life- 13 cycle housing goals that have been established by the Metropolitan Council. 14 15 B UDGET I MPLICATIONS 16 There areno budget implications to the City. 17 18 S TAFF R ECOMMENDATION 19 Adopt a resolution electing to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program under 20 the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (Attachment B). 21 22 R EQUESTED C OUNCIL A CTION 23 By motion,adopt the resolution electing to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account 24 Program under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (Attachment B). Prepared by:Jeanne Kelsey, Housing and Economic Development Program Manager, 651-792-7086 Page 1of 2 Attachments: A: Metropolitan Council Methodology B: Resolution electing to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program under the Metropolitan Livable Communities ACT Page 2 of 2 Attachment A Attachment: 2021-2030Affordable and Life-cycle Housing Goals Methodology Months of cumulative outreach and discussion about how 2021-2030 affordable and life-cycle housing goals should be calculated (summarized at a May 4 Communities Development Committee meeting), has led to a methodology that is consistent and easy to understand. The selected methodology attempts to strike a reasonable, balanced approach that considers the variety of differing circumstances across communities. The 2021-2030 affordable housing goals will be a range to reflect the uncertainty and variety of local affordable housing development, and use a similar approach that 2011-2020 goals used. How were 2011-2030 affordable housing goals calculated? In 2009 and 2010 broad discussions were had about how to determine 2011-2020 affordable housing goals, including some of the same stakeholders - and even some of the same people! - that provided input for the coming decade’s goals. In summary, an estimate of available funding for affordable housing was determined for the 2011-2020 decade and used to calculate what percent of the decade’s need for affordable housing could possibly be developed. This percentage was calculated at 65%, which was then applied to each community’s share of affordable housing need for 2011-2020 to create a low end of an affordable housing goal range. The high end of a community’s goal range was the need number itself. Some communities had access to additional funding sources and therefore the low end of their range was increased, but most communities’ 2011-2020 affordable housing goal was a range between 65% and 100% of their 2011-2020 share of affordable housing need. How are 2021-2030 affordable housing goals being calculated? Affordable and life-cycle housing goals are calculated based on each community’s share of the region’s need for affordable housing in the coming decade. Each community has, or is in the process of, updating their comprehensive plans to acknowledge this “need” number, which is based on their forecasted sewer-serviced growth, their existing affordable housing choices relative to the regional average, and whether or not they import or export low-wage workers. Forecasted growth considers a community’s transit capacity, land use guidance, employment growth, and other economic and demographic trends. “Need” numbers are further adjusted as described above to encourage affordable housing development that will provide reasonable housing options at all incomes throughout the region. Determining affordable housing “goals” (which are required for LCA participation) based on affordable housing “needs” (which are required to be addressed per the Metropolitan Land Planning Act) ensures that those goals factor in all the unique characteristics of a community. However, it is widely acknowledged that there is not sufficient funding available to meet the forecasted affordable housing “need,” and affordable housing goals are an opportunity for cities to consider a more realistic, if still ambitious, number of affordable housing units that could be built in the coming decade. For this reason, the amount of funding anticipated for affordable housing development in the coming decade is the primary consideration in determining affordable housing goals. Working closely with Minnesota Housing, we have estimated that funding in 2021-2030 could support the construction of about 45% of the forecasted need for affordable housing. Attachment A Wemust acknowledge that not every source of affordable housing funding iscaptured in this calculation. We also acknowledge that there are many things individual local governments can do to incentivize and partner with affordable housing developers to increase their chances of accessing available funding. Finally, many focus group participants and survey respondents indicated a desire to set goals above minimum funding limitations as an incentive to do more. For this reason, we have set the low end of your community’s 2021-2030 affordable housing goals at 55% of your share of the region’s need for affordable housing (also known as the “need” number in your comprehensive plan). That percentage reflects the funding availability estimate (45%), plus an additional 10% to account for local policies and less common funding sources. Shown another way: We heard from survey respondents and stakeholder conversationsthat funding has historically limited our ability to meet all affordable housing needs, but many partners – both cities and other stakeholders – felt that affordable housing goals should also reflect the future need. There is no penalty for not meeting affordable housing goals, and equating “goals” with “needs” may incentivize us to work harder to address affordable housing needs and bring attention to the needfor more funding to create resilient communities where housing choices are robust. For that reason, the high end of your community’s 2021-2030 affordable housing goal is equal to your 2021-2030 affordable housing need number from your comprehensive plan.For example, if your share of the region’s need for affordable housing in the coming decade is 100 units, your goal range would look like this: How were 2011-2020life-cycle housing goals being calculated? Life-cycle housing goals were also considered in partnership with communities and stakeholders in 2009-2010. In summary,life-cycle housing goals were also determined as a range. The low end of the range was the 2011-2020 share of affordable housing need. The high end of the range was calculated by multiplying all land guided multi-family residential AND expected to develop in the 2011 decade by the maximum densities of those land uses.This resulted in some very high life-cycle housing goals! Page - 2 | September 16, 2020 | METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Attachment A How are 2021-2030life-cycle housing goalsbeingcalculated? Life-cycle goals are intended to ensure communities are allowing for a variety of housing types; specifically a mix of densities within their residential land. Although all communities must allow minimum average residential densities for sewerserviced growth, and additional average density minimums near certain transit investments, this measure is more about knowing how many multi-family units are possible. Therefore, life-cycle goals are being measured by looking at all multi-family land uses(defined as land uses with a minimum of 8 units per acre or more), and multiplying the acres of land expected to develop in the coming decade by the median density of those multi-family land use designations. Shown another way: Page - 3 | September 16, 2020 | METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Attachment B 1 EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING 2 OF THE 3 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE 4 5 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 6 7 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City st of Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota was duly held on the 21 8 day of September, 9 2020, at 6:00 p.m. 10 The following members were present: 11 12 and the following were absent: 13 14 Member __________introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 15 16 RESOLUTION No. __ 17 18 RESOLUTION ELECTING TO PARTICIPATE IN 19 THE LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT PROGRAM 20 UNDER THE METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT 21 22 CALENDAR YEARS 2021 THROUGH 2030 23 24 WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (Minnesota Statutes sections 25 473.25 to 473.255) establishes a Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund 26 which is intended to address housing and other development issues facing 27 the metropolitan area defined by Minnesota Statutes section 473.121; and 28 29 WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund, comprising the Tax Base 30 Revitalization Account, the Livable Communities Demonstration Account, 31 the Local Housing Incentive Account and the Inclusionary Housing 32 Account, is intended to provide certain funding and other assistance to 33 metropolitan-area municipalities; and 34 35 WHEREAS, a metropolitan-area municipality is not eligible to receive grants or loans 36 under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund or eligible to receive 37 certain polluted sites cleanup funding from the Minnesota Department of 38 Employment and Economic Development unless the municipality is 39 participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program under 40 Minnesota Statutes section 473.254; and 41 42 WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act requires that each municipality 43 establish affordable and life-cycle housing goals for that municipality that 44 are consistent with and promote the policies of the Metropolitan Council as 45 provided in the adopted Metropolitan Development Guide; and Attachment B 46 47 WHEREAS, a metropolitan-area municipality can participate in the Local Housing 48 Incentives Account Program under Minnesota Statutes section 473.254 if: 49 (a) the municipality elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives 50 Program; (b) the Metropolitan Council and the municipality successfully 51 negotiate new affordable and life-cycle housing goals for the municipality; 52 (c) the Metropolitan Council adopts by resolution the new negotiated 53 affordable and life-cycle housing goals for the municipality; and (d) the 54 municipality establishes it has spent or will spend or distribute to the Local 55 Housing Incentives Account the required Affordable and Life-Cycle 56 Housing Opportunities Amount (ALHOA) for each year the municipality 57 participates in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program. 58 59 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Roseville: 60 61 1. Elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Program under the 62 Metropolitan Livable Communities Act for calendar years 2021 through 2030. 63 64 2. Agrees to the following affordable and life-cycle housing goals for calendar years 65 2021 through 2030: 66 Affordable Housing Goals Range Life-Cycle Housing Goal 78-142 400 67 68 3. Will prepare and submit to the Metropolitan Council a plan identifying the actions 69 it plans to take to meet its established housing goals. 70 71 72 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member 73 74 ___________, and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: 75 76 77 78 and the following voted against the same: 79 80 WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 81 Attachment B 82 Certificate 83 84 I, the undersigned, being duly appointed City Manager of the City of Roseville, 85 Minnesota, hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing 86 resolution with the original thereof on file in my office and further certify that the same is 87 a full, true, and complete copy of a resolution which was duly adopted by the City 88 Council of said City at a duly called and regular meeting thereof on September 21, 2020. 89 90 I further certify that Councilmember ________introduced said resolution and 91 moved its adoption, which motion was duly seconded by Councilmember _________, 92 and that upon roll call vote being taken thereon, the following Councilmembers voted in 93 favor thereof: 94 95 96 97 and the following voted against the same: 98 99 100 whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 101 102 Witness my hand as the City Manager of the Citythis ___ day of September, 103 2020. 104 105 106 107 108 Patrick Trudgeon, City Manager 109 City of Roseville, Minnesota 110 111