Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
08.08.16 Work Session Packet
City ofFarmington Mission Statement 430 Third Street Through teamwork and Farmington,MN 55024 cooperation, the City of Farmington provides quality services that preserve our proud past and foster a promising future. AGENDA CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP August 8, 2016 6:30 PM Farmington City Hall 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVE AGENDA 3. DISCUSSION ITEMS (a) Fire Department Flexible Staffing and Apparatus Committee Request (b) 2017 Revised Draft Budgets (c) Snow Fence Installation-Flagstaff Avenue 4. CITY ADMINISTRATOR UPDATE 5. ADJOURN oti i,, City of Farmington Z 430 Third Street Farmington, Minnesota '�� 651.280.6800 -Fax 651.280.6899 4'�+a.,■ ya''' www.cifarmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator FROM: Jim Larsen-Fire Chief SUBJECT: Fire Department Flexible Staffing and Apparatus Committee Request DATE: August 8, 2016 INTRODUCTION Fire Department staff is seeking approval for a flexible staffing plan and approval to cover travel costs associated with apparatus committee. DISCUSSION Flexible Staffing; .According to information provided by Human Resources Director Brenda Wendlandt, the Farmington Fire Department last had an approved increase of personnel from 48 members to 50 members in 2007. According to data found in the annual reports of the Farmington Fire Department there has been a 213% increase in annual emergency incidents from 2008-2015. There were 230 emergency incidents in 2008 compared to the 720 that occurred in 2015. During that same period, there has been no increase in personnel to answer those calls. While approved for 50, we only have 46 members today. Of those 46, up to five members have been out on long term illness/injury leave for almost a full year(four right now) so that our number of members responding is actually 42. Our department members have a long history of military service. Today we have one Lieutenant who is on active duty military leave. Deployed in 2015, the lieutenant is not expected back until mid 2017. We have two firefighters who are members of the Minnesota Army National Guard. These members are normally gone a minimum of one weekend a month and two full weeks a year for regularly scheduled training. One of these firefighters was activated for a month of additional combat training during June while the other firefighter was selected to participate in a foreign troop exchange and was overseas in Europe for several weeks, also in June. One Lieutenant recently retired after 20 years of service in the United States Marine Corps. One Lieutenant and one firefighter recently retired after 20 years of service from the United States Army.All three of these members are subject to activation as ready reserves due to their unique military experience and capabilities/rank in the event of conflict. In total, this is six members which include three of eight front line supervisors who have the potential of being activated and deployed with 24-48 hours notice. Staffing issues are not unique to Farmington.All over the United States, volunteer and paid on call fire departments are having difficulty recruiting and retaining qualified personneL Closer to home we found the following: -Apple Valley has an authorized strength of 74, currently at 65. -Lakeville has an authorized strength of 90, currently at 76. -Rosemount has an authorized strength of 53, currently at 42. During July, we held a recruitment cycle that saw some of the largest numbers of interested candidates in recent years. Four of these interested parties have previous firefighting experience and possess the needed certifications to begin working right away. They are currently undergoing background investigations and physical examinations. In addition, another six candidates successfully passed all testing components. We would like to begin the background and medical exam process on these individuals in time for them to begin the Apple Valley, Lakeville, Farmington fire academy in mid September 2016. We believe that the recent improvements to the Farmington Fire Department have generated an increase in the interest of community members who want to be part of this great department. Furthermore, we believe that the time is right to increase our staffing numbers while there is considerably more interest than there has been in the recent past and recommend that the number of approved staffing be raised from 50 members to 60. Data showing a 213% increase in emergency incidents since the last increase in approved staffing support our recommendation. Apparatus Committee: The Farmington Fire Department Capital Improvement Plan(CIP)calls for a new Engine/Tender to be delivered in 2019. The process to specify and build a vehicle of this size and complexity takes a great amount of time. Members of the Apparatus Committee have already been meeting to design the vehicle. The members of the Apparatus Committee include Chief Larsen, Captain Adam Fischer and Firefighters Ricky Martin, Matt Donnelly, Tim Nielsen and John Budrow. The committee members volunteer their time and are not compensated for the hundreds of hours they will invest in the process. It is a regular practice to visit area departments to visualize recently delivered apparatus and to travel to selected manufacturers in order to meet with engineers and designers as well as to tour facilities, observe processes and have the opportunity to "kick the tires". We are seeking approval to begin this process which will have some fuel, travel and occasional meal costs associated with this process. In rare occasions, some overnight travel, lodging and airfare may be involved. Manufacturers will routinely reimburse these costs as part of the decision making process. BUDGET IMPACT Flexible Staffing: There would be no costs associated in the 2016 budget. There are normal personal protective clothing costs included as part of our regular budget process. We are already approved for 50 members and are currently at 46 with four personnel still out on long term disability. For 2017, the cost for personal protective equipment(bunker gear)is a normal operating expense in the line item budget. Probationary firefighters attending training at the fire academy are currently not paid any hourly costs associated with the hundreds of hours of training provided. The newly approved members would not begin a cost factor until they are done with their training in April 2017. The cost for six additional members to attend weekly training in 2017 is estimated at$6,318.72. This is 6 Members X 4 Trainings per month X 3 Hours per session X 8 Months remaining X$10.97 per hour. The cost for six additional members to respond to incidents is calculated at$10.97 per hour X 216 calls (30%required minimum callback percentage of 2015 total call volume)X 1 Hour minimum X six members= $14,217.12. The grand total is estimated at$20,535.84 to put six additional members on. Apparatus Committee: Costs associated with these visits will be minimal. For most visits,just the cost of fuel in department vehicles and meals not to exceed $2,500.00. These costs are contained within our current budget. For one or two there may be airfare, hotels and meals which will be reimbursed or paid for by the manufacturer. ACTION REQUESTED Discuss the flexible staffing plan and the request to begin travel and costs associated for apparatus committee visits. Ai%``�A0 City of Farmington 430 Third Street Farmington, Minnesota 651.280.6800 -Fax 651.280.6899 �*.•,,,,, . www.cifarmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator FROM: Robin Hanson, Finance Director SUBJECT: 2017 Revised Draft Budgets DATE: August 8, 2016 INTRODUCTION Please see the attached cover memo and related attachments. DISCUSSION NA BUDGET IMPACT NA ACTION REQUESTED NA ATTACHMENTS: Type Description a Cover Memo 2017 Revised Draft Budgets D Backup Material General Fund and Debt Levy Summary Page- Revised D Backup Material General Fund Revenue Summary-Revised D Backup Material General Fund Expenditure Summary-Revised D Backup Material Operating Transfers -Revised ® Backup Material Debt Service Funds Summary ✓ Backup Material Special Revenue Funds Summary ® Backup Material Capital Projects Funds Summary i Backup Material Enterprise Funds Summary © Backup Material Request for New IT Position Backup Material Original Budget Memo From July 11, 2016 Workshop i i City of Farmington :VW 430 Third Street Farmington, Minnesota 651.280.6800•Fax 651.280.6899 www.ciSarmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Council and City Administrator FROM: Robin Hanson, Finance Director SUBJECT: Draft 2017 Budgets-Revised DATE: August 8,2016 INTRODUCTION: The August workshop provides the last scheduled opportunity for council to review the 2017 budgets before adopting the preliminary levy at your September 6, 2016 council meeting. DISCUSSION: The 2017 draft General Fund budget requires a 4.94%levy and is summarized as follows: 2017 2016 Proposed Increase Budget Budget (Decrease) Revenues $3,051,055 3,119,737 68,682 Expenditures 11,798,225 12,247,443 449,218 Fiscal Disparities 2,104,764 2,077,080 (27,684) General Fund Levy 6,642,406 7,050,626 408,220 Debt Levy 2,970,848 3,037,903 67,055 Farmington Net Tax Levy $9,613,254 $10,088,529 $475,275 4.94% Changes in General Fund budget from July workshop The revised summary pages for the draft 2017 budgets have been attached for your review. The changes in the net tax levy from the July 11, 2016 workshop are summarized below. The 2017 LGA amounts were published and refinements were made to the HR, LOGIS and IT costs with the offset resulting in an increase to the transfers into the Building Maintenance Fund. Proposed Net Tax Levy July 11, 2016 $10,088,529 Increase in LGA to 2017 amount 2,548 Decrease in HR costs, refined (6,999) Increase in LOGIS costs, added e-Permits 1,680 Decrease in IT costs,refined (7,464) Increase in transfers to Building Maintenance Fund 11,020 Other (785) Proposed Net Tax Levy August 8,2016 $10,088,529 To the best of my knowledge there haven't been any changes to the other budgets. Staff Items for Discussion During the workshop staff would like to review two specific items which were proposed for 2017: 1) Funding for the Heritage Preservation Commission consultant, commission member stipends and related support expenses were eliminated in the draft 2017 budgets. This means after 2016 the city would no longer invest time and effort in this area. 2) Funds have been allocated for a new IT position. A memo providing information about the changes in the city's information technology and the need for this position is included in your packet. Additional Notes 1. A copy of the original budget discussion memo from the July 11, 2016 council workshop 2. The final fiscal disparities amount will not be known until later this month. 3. The attached budgets do not include the impact of the city's 2017 bond referendum. If question one passed,the estimated annual tax increase on a 2016 median value home of $212,787 for question one is $75.00 for 20 years. If both questions one and two are passed the estimated annual tax increase is $102 for 20 years. In addition annual operating costs,net of the currently budgeted pool subsidy of$72,000, are estimated to require an additional $115,000 in annual operating levy. 4. The attached budgets do not reflect any anticipated debt refundings. These refundings are not guaranteed and will not occur until after the preliminary levy is adopted. If the city is able to refund some of its debt later this year,the 2017 debt budget will be revised, accordingly. 5. The city has an accrued, unfunded liability for compensated absences of$850,000 as of December 31, 2015. These amounts have historically been funded from current operations. As some of the more tenured employees begin to retire these amounts will be larger and will be more challenging to absorb. BUDGET IMPACT: All information is related to the development of the 2017 city budget and tax levy. The 2018 projected budget numbers have had minimal review. Staff will begin reviewing those items after the preliminary 2017 budget is adopted;they are a work in progress. ACTION REQUESTED: Discuss the elimination of the Heritage Preservation Commission work,the proposed IT position, any other questions you may have regarding the proposed budgets and provide staff with direction for any needed revisions. Respectfully submitted, Robin Hanson, Finance Director City of Farmington Budget and Tax Levy 2016 Budget,2017 Proposed and 2018 Proposed Company 2016 2017 Budget% 2018 Budget Change Budget Proposed Change Proposed % Ion-Property Tax Revenues Licenses and Permits 367,703 397,615 8.13% 248,615 (37.47)' intergovernmental Revenue 803,134 847,432 5.52% 844,884 (0.30)' Charge for Service 591,700 601,950 1.73% 582,950 (3.16)' Fines and Forfeitures 65,000 52,000 (20.00)% 52,000 0.00' Investment Income 18,462 23,005 24.61% 23,005 0.00' Miscellaneous 56,685 47,385 (16.41)% 47,385 0.00' Transfers in 1,148,371 1,150,350 0.17% 1,184,866 3.00' Total Revenues 3,051,055 3,119,737 2.25% 2,983,705 (4.36)' xpenditures Administration 822,114 731,249 (11.05)% 870,744 19.08' Human Resource 279,035 294,176 5.43% 313,253 6.48' Finance and Risk Mgmt 681,973 740,555 8.59% 772,217 4.28' Police 4,187,762 4,342,684 3.70% 4,551,957 4.82' Fire 1,140,007 1,136,323 (0.32)% 1,452,141 27.79' Community Development 604,498 725,721 20.05% 761,057 4.87' Engineering 656,688 696,239 6.02% 724,279 4.03' Municipal Services 1,245,499 1,285,932 3.25% 1,343,673 4.49' Parks and Recreation 1,268,663 1,330,822 4.90% 1,404,535 5.54' Perm Levy Adj(15,16,17) 5,379 (100.00)% Transfers Out 906,607 963,742 6.30% 1,045,174 8.45' Total Expenditures 11,798,225 12,247,443 3.81% 13,239,030 8.10' revenues Over(Under)Expenditures (8,747,170) (9,127,706) 4.35% (10,255,325) 12.35' iscai Disparities 2,104,764 2,077,080 (1.32)% 2,049,396 (1.33)' ienerai Fund Levy 6,642,406 7,050,626 6.15% 8,205,929 16.39' )ebt Levy Debt Levy-Bonds 2,684,848 2,871,903 6.97% 3,268,373 13.81' Debt Levy-Fire Truck 120,000 0 (100.00)% Debt Levy-2005C Repay Storm Water Trunk Adv 166,000 166,000 0.00% 166,000 0.00' Total Debt Levy 2,970,848 3,037,903 2.26% 3434,373 13.05' ,g Credit 0 Farmington Net Tax Levy 9,613,254 10,088,529 4.94% 11,640,302 15.38' )cation: Documents\FARMINGTON\Budget 2017-2018\1 General Fund Budget Summary Page 2016 Base 2/2016 11:30:31 AM General Fund Detailed Non-Property Tax Revenue Summary 2015 Budget,2016 Budget, 2017 Proposed and 2018 Proposed Object 2015 2016 2017 2018 Account Budget Budget Proposed Proposed LIQUOR LICENSES 29,600 31,000 29,600 29,600 BEER&WINE LICENSES 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 CLUB LICENSES 500 300 500 500 ARCADE LICENSE 520 655 540 540 MASSAGE LICENSE 100 100 100 100 GAMBLING LICENSE/PERMIT 150 200 200 200 OTHER LICENSE&PERMIT 1,400 1,900 1,200 1,200 ANIMAL LICENSES 1,200 5,000 4,000 4,000 Licenses 35,670 41,355 38,340 38,340 BUILDING PERMITS 380,000 265,298 301,075 171,075 REINSPECTION FEES 800 600 600 600 PLUMBING&HEATING PERMITS 35,000 32,000 30,000 15,000 SEWER PERMITS 5,000 5,000 5,000 3,000 ELECTRIC PERMITS 12,000 12,000 12,000 10,000 ISTS PERMITS 350 350 350 350 COUNTY SEPTIC FEE UTILITY PERMITS 5,500 5,500 5,500 5,500 STREETBREAKING PERMITS 0 0 SIGN PERMITS 500 500 500 500 BURNING PERMITS 4,300 1,000 1,000 1,000 OTHER PERMITS 4,100 4,100 3,250, 3,250 Permits 447,550 326,348 359,275 210,275 Licenses and Permits 483,220 367,703 397,615 248,615 FEDERAL GRANT 0 0 - LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID 276,607 284,884 287,432 284,884 MSA MAINTENANCE 190,000 190,000 220,000 220,000 POLICE AID 170,000 180,000 180,000 180,000 POST TRAINING 25,000'' 31,000 17,000, 17,000 FIRE AID 92,000 110,000 127,0001 127,000 STATE GRANT 2,000 2,000 MARKET VALUE CREDIT 0 0 COUNTY MISCELLANEOUS 5,250 5,250 16,000 16,000 OTHER MISCELLANEOUS 0, 0 Intergovernmental 760,857 803,134 847,432 844,884 CUSTOMER SERVICES NONTAXABLE 600 0 ZONING&SUBDIVISION FEES 1,600, 0 0 ADMINISTRATION FEES-PROJECTS 250 0 0 CHARGES 175,000 215,000 212,000 212,000 POLICE SERVICE CHARGES 75,0001 75,000 75,000 ENGINEERING FEES-PROJECTS , EROSION&SEDIMENT CONTROL 10,500 12,000 12,0001 PUBLIC WORKS MISC CHARGES 30011 0 0 RECREATION FEES-GENERAL 97,000 96,000 93,000 93,000 POOL ADMISSIONS 40,000 37,000 37,000 37,000 SWIM LESSON FEES 14,000 13,000 11,0001 11,000 CONCESSIONS 13,000 11,000 11,000' 11,000 RECREATION FEES-SENIOR CTR 16,000 18,000 19,000 20,000 MEMBERSHIP FEES-SENIOR CTR 13,000 12,000 9,000 9,000 )cation: Documents\FARMINGTON\Budget 2017-2018\1.1 Gen'I Fund Revenue Summary 2016 Base Page 1 of General Fund Detailed Non-Property Tax Revenue Summary 2015 Budget,2016 Budget, 2017 Proposed and 2018 Proposed Object 2015 2016 2017 2018 Account Budget Budget Proposed Proposed MOBILE MEALS-SENIOR CTR 1 ADVERTISING 5001 500 750 750 LESSONS ADVERTISING 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 FRANCHISE FEE 100,000 100,000 120,000 100,000 -- -- ------------ ---------------- - - --- Charges For Services 558,950 591,700 601,950 582,950 COURT FINES 72,000 65,000 52,000 52,000 Fines&Forfeitures 72,000 65,000 52,000 52,000 -- -- --------------------------- - INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 20,000 18,462 23,005 23,005 GAIN/LOSS INVEST MKT VALUE - - --- ------------ --------------- -- -- ---- investment Income 20,000 18,462 23,005 23,005 -- ----- - - -- MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 86,000 15,000 5,000 5,000 I CASH OVER&SHORT RENTAL INCOME-RRC 18,000 20,000 21,0001 1 21,000 RENTAL INCOME-POOL 3,000 2,000 2,200 2,200 RENTAL INCOME 14,000 19,685 19,185 19,185 DONATIONS 0 0 Misc Revenue 121,000 56,685 47,385 47,385 OPERATING TRANSFERS 1,124,180 1,148,371 1,150,35011 1,184,866 Transfers In 1,124,180 1,148,371 1,150,350 1,184,866 Total Revenues $3,140,207 $3,051,055 $3,119,737 $2,983,705 )cation: Documents\FARMINGTON\Budget 2017-2018\1.1 Gen'I Fund Revenue Summary 2016 Base Page 2 of General Fund Expenditure Detail Summary 2015 Budget,2016 Budget 2017 Proposed and 2018 Proposed Company 2015 2016 2017 2018 Budget Budget Proposed Proposed Expenditures Administration Legislative(1005) 109,514 86,9061 90,121 119,410 Historical Preservation(1006) 7,500 3,855 0 8,100 Administration(1010) 419,713 376,379 295,408 393,417 Elections(1013) 21,839 57,548 34,370 18,999 Communications(1014) 100,641 102,105 109,072 116,242 City Hall(1015) 170,670 195,321 202,278 214,576 Administration 829,877 822,114 731,249 870,744 Human Resources 263,344 279,035 294,176 313,253 Human Resource(1011) 263,344 279,035 294,176 313,253 Human Resources 263,344 279,035 294,176 313,253 Finance and Risk Management Finance(1021) 434,019 491,973 564,255 588,817 Risk Management(1022) 180,000 190,000 176,300 183,400 Finance and Risk Management 614,019 681,973 740,555 772,217 - - -- ---- ------- - - -- ------- - Police Police Administration(1050) 818,227 840,955 824,242 904,472 Patrol Services(1051) 2,516,154 2,679,435 2,692,619 2,795,417 Investigations(1052) 774,461 662,472 820,923 845,418 Emergency Management(1054) 6,150 4,900 4,900 6,650 Police 4,114,992 4,187,762 4,342,684 4,551,957 Fire Fire(1060) 984,652 1,140,007 1,136,323 1,452,141 Rescue(1061) 58,065 0 0 Fire 1,042,717 1,140,007 1,136,323 1,452,141 Community Development 526,475 604,498 725,721 761,057 Planning(1030) 266,756 347,774 421,014 445,453 Building Inspection(1031) 259,719, 256,724 304,707, 315,604 Community Development 526,475 604,498 725,721 761,057 Engineering Engineering(1070) 581,252 531,112 553,888 580,625 Natural Resources(1076) 117,583 125,576 142,351 143,654 Engineering 698,835 656,688 696,239 724,279 Municipal Services Streets(1072) 1,084,277 1,018,604 1,053,393 1,096,797 Snow Removal(1073) 205,407 226,895 232,539 246,876 Municipal Services 1,289,684 1,245,499 1,285,932 1,343,673 Parks and Recreation Park Maintenance(1090) 595,742 608,700 636,713 681,269 Rambling River Center(1093) 169,751 149,1661 171,858 181,515 Park&Rec Admin(1094) 248,062 262,158 271,090 282,435 Recreation Programs(1095) 113,259 113,407 113,822 116,770 Swimming Pool(1097) 149,860 135,232 137,339 142,546 Parks and Recreation 1,276,674 1,268,663 1,330,822 1,404,535] Perm Levy Adj(2015&2016)and 1/3 Delq Exp(2016) 30,000 5,379 Transfers Out 796,007.00 906,607.00 963,742.00 1,045,174.00 Transfers Out 796,007.00 906,607.00 963,742.00 1,045,174.001 Total Expenditures 11,482,624 11,798,225 12,247,443 13,239,030 2/2016 11:39:59 AM Page 1 of O O O x r O , - h W O o.-0 E C W y a) to r- r- rn V) W CO N N CO m CO M H tD N- O (`'J to 0 CO O 7 CO O CO a U 0 O O L C o_ o O C C M 7,-M M • O N I0 H• To 2 U) CO N to N- 7 CO r C r` 7 . D N r r` to • ca n V co CT a) m O O O o O O O O 0 ' C O o O O M "" co M N- U-) m o_ H M O O oo r- ra o ■o 0 0 0 ' 0 I U O r O O j To N In to O a) M M co N N N to )o N V V C G C (1", n a ' ` ` " E E rn F- a) C2 O rn rn -0 C D. a > a (0 C m U .7 LL ; o L. W W O N La) 1 O O o O O to C To C y _ O O O O O o O ' 9 a E ' u) O o O to y C o—U ° w a> m N m@ 'S ti E E 0 U W > m o) H n a, a m @ O O O 0 N 0 0 m a EaLL o In 0 o O Q ra N 7 N N . CO U -a a) T N >, o co O O N s. o o o o o y O o o o ' 'O (.6 O (O O O 0 w O c0 to m 0 is V V (O O 7 @ C_ 2 O O � C o O O .O @ O O O — a) o O o • U a a 0 0 O O C 0 ca U ,- oM o F2 v U 0 LL N C N CO r� a) co N o N co O co M to 'O )f) _ r- Lc) to .� o] O a C N a) M 7 M N @ p E M E Z n a) Y O O O CO O O O m E °o ° oo oo o o C N op > C O O O U > J O O O L > O O J @ O O U O 0 O O > C U N MC' N N T E U) , E J rY N ° O O O O In U N W O O O O O N LL n U) V co V m O C Z CMS) 2 O H Q -a J Q 0 C F - ~ m ,n 0 0 0 ° to V O O O N Z V c a to O o N @ m o f-_ U O Q O (13 IN Q d m N OM CO N CO o CO O CO t` Olr) IC CL o O M CO N N N CO N CO N O) CO ' N O Q V V V 7 (O V' 7 7 N O N r- O to N- CD r LO ti CO r CO to V- N N C O r m N H u u. 6 u. (0 0 0 0 0 Q � EC O O 0 o n E E N E N E N E N Debt Service Funds Summary *Includes Fund 3005 (formerly 86A) as placeholder for Fire Truck loan, Fund 3093 as Placeholder for 2O15A 195th St Bond Issue 2015 Actual,2016 Budget, 2017 Proposed and 2018 Proposed Company Actual Budget Proposed Proposed 2015 2016 2017 2018 Revenues Property Taxes(i.e.Debt Levy) 2,977,613 2,970,848 3,037,903 3,434,3731' Special Assessments 478,658 466,817 437,450 422,823 Deferred Assessments(VRC) 24,943 0 MSA Construction 0 335,000 Interest on Investments 28,495 24,745 23,926 23,926 Total Revenues 3,509,708 3,797,410 3,499,279 3,881,122 Expenditures Principal Repayment 2,899,162 4,527,474 3,110,000 3,320,000 Interest on Debt 965,658 972,115 822,263 729,934' Debt-Fiscal Charges 69,783 29,089 42,355 32,506 Total Expenditures 3,934,604 5,528,678 3,974,618 4,082,4401 Other Financing Sources Bond Proceeds 3,050,000 0 Transfers In 946,525 1,878,552 464,552 346,552 Transfers Out (3,305,294) (117,000) (166,000) (166,000) Total Transfers 691,231 1,761,552 298,552 180,552, Change in Fund Balance 266,335 30,284 (176,787) (20,766) 2/2016 11:43:01 AM Page 1 of Special Revenue Funds Budget Summary 2015 Actual,2016 Budget, 2017 Proposed and 2018 Proposed Company 2015 2016 2017 2018 Actual Budget Proposed Proposed Revenues EDA(2000) 52,697 1,572 2,374 2,374 TIF-City Center(2050) 112,725 111,978 Police Donations&Forfeitures(2100) 11,209 5,084 5,082 5,082 Park Improvement Fund(2300) 46,738 9,008 9,000 9,000 Ice Arena(2500) 322,672 321,750 333,786 333,786 Total Revenues 546,040 449,392 350,242 350,242 Expenditures EDA(2000) 69,683 42,430 45,255 47,658 TIF-City Center(2050) 349,506 8,704 Police Donations&Forfeitures(2100) 7,300 6,500 6,500 6,500 Park Improvement Fund(2300) 54,604 60,000 150,000 200,000 Ice Arena(2500) 319,552 317,418 313,952 326,693 Total Expenditures 800,644 435,052 515,707 580,851 Transfers Transfers In 130,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 Transfers Out (10,000) 0 Total Transfers 120,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 Change in Fund Balance (134,604) 94,340 (85,465) (150,609) 2/2016 11:44:10 AM Page 1 of Capital Projects Funds Summary 2015 Actual,2016 Budget, 2017 Proposed and 2018 Proposed Company 2015 2016 2017 2018 Actual Budget Proposed Proposed Revenues Sanitary Sewer Trunk(3900) 41,927 32,437 2,981 2,981 Cable Communications Fund(4000) 172,474 174,177 174,347 174,3471 Road and Bridge/Street Reconstruction Fund(4100) 48,727 35,978 24,987 22,801 Fire Capital Projects Fund(4300) 175,794 15,658 1,293 1,293 Storm Water Trunk(4400) 93,072 30,238 31,173 31,173 RRC&Youth Hockey Cap Proj Donations(Rec Cap Proj Fund-4500) 26,168 5,210 (15,988) (15,988) Private Capital Projects(4600) (26,624) 22,354 22,892 22,892 Permanent Imp Revolving Fund(4900) 20,844 16,400 1,002 1,002 Gen'I Cap Equip Fund(5600) 15,777 13 441 441 Maintenance Fund(5700) 1,206,736 11,631 560,782 560,782 Total Revenues 1,774,896 344,096 803,910 801,724 Expenditures Sanitary Sewer Trunk 14 0 Cable Communications Fund 57,609 81,000 81,000 90,000 Road and Bridge/Street Reconstruction Fund(4100) 220 0 0 0 Fire Capital Projects Fund(4300) 127,243 222,500 0 0 Storm Water Trunk Fund 3,749 0 RRC&Youth Hockey Cap Proj Donations(Rec Cap Proj Fund-4500) 21,614 7,500 14,250 14,250 Private Capital Projects 1,494 20,000 20,000 20,000 Permanent Imp Revolving Fund 365 474 Gen'l Cap Equip Fund(5600) 93,479 141,607 157,546 79,645 Maintenance Fund 4,402,908 621,500 594,250 723,750, Total Expenditures 4,708,695 1,094,581 867,046 927,645, Transfers Transfers In 3,994,219 983,607 1,506,720 1,688,152 Transfers Out (940,265) (1,754,000) (790,000) (772,000) Total Transfers 3,053,954 (770,393) 716,720 916,152 Change in Fund Balance 120,155 (1,520,878) 653,584 790,231 2/2016 11:45:28 AM Page 1 of Enterprise Funds Budget Summary 2015 Actual,2016 Budget, 2017 Proposed and 2018 Proposed Company 2015 2016 2017 2018 Actual Budget Proposed Proposed Revenues Liquor Stores,Net of Cost of Goods Sold(6100:6115) 1,149,373 1,157,126 1,172,471 1,172,714 Sewer Operations(6200:6205) 1,979,866 2,046,426 2,060,012 2,065,219 Solid Waste(6300:6302) 2,024,997 1,927,295 1,986,203 1,986,203 Storm Water(6400:6405) 1,623,186 641,396 650,003 740,449 Water(6500:6508) 1,541,411 1,677,698 1,813,099 1,820,684, Streetlights(6600:6602) 223,454 219,380 220,838 221,8381 Total Revenues 8,542,286 7,669,321 7,902,626 8,007,107 Expenditures Liquor Stores 885,118 934,208 962,953 982,836 Operations 1,875,224 2,077,805 2,304,439 2,327,719 Solid Waste 1,658,124 2,072,302 1,905,011 2,043,403 Storm Water 731,445 637,676 690,995 667,926 Water 1,339,587 1,523,282 1,506,024 1,506,358 Streetlights 173,212 222,100 266,200, 242,200 Total Expenditures 6,662,710 7,467,373 7,635,622 7,770,4421 Transfers i I Transfers In 1,193,968 0 63,849, 65,76311 Transfers Out (1,470,837) (1,312,923) (1,384,861) (1,421,291) Total Transfers (276,869) (1,312,923) (1,321,012) (1,355,528)I Change in Fund Balance 1,602,707 (1,110,975) (1,054,008) (1,118,863) 2/2016 11:46:31 AM Page 1 of 4italug, City of Farmington y 'y 430 Third Street Farmington, Minnesota `.0.''10 651.280.6800•Fax 651.280.6899 www.cilannington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, and City Administrator FROM: Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director SUBJECT: Position Request- IT DATE: August 8, 2016 Introduction and Discussion This memorandum provides information regarding the request being made for Council to approve a new position in Information Technology. In 2005,the city added its first information technology position. At that time,the city recognized the need to add this position to support workstations, printers, servers and switches in City Hall,the Police Department, Central Maintenance Facility,the Rambling River Center, 1 Fire Station and 1 Liquor Store. Since that time,the vast changes in technology have provided opportunities for the city to accomplish its goals more productively and efficiently. However,those changes included extensive expansion of the city's IT capabilities and infrastructure; and city IT equipment can now be found in every city facility. Today, our technology encompasses networked individual workstations, mobile computers, iPads, printers, server networks including firewalls, switches, routers, cell phones, radio pagers, a video surveillance system, card access system, VOIP telephone system, and a fiber network. To further illustrate the extent of the city's technology,the amount of hardware that the city currently has in service includes: 103 desktop computers, 22 mobile computers, 11 iPads, 8 servers, 16 switches, 9 networked copiers, 9 printers, 6 UPS units with 5 more scheduled to be installed this year, 1 plotter, 3 scanners, a surveillance system with 96 cameras at 13 locations, a card access system at 6 locations, a VOIP telephone system across all locations and fiber optic network. Staff has a complete schematic of our computer infrastructure available for Council to view, however, it cannot be shared publicly as doing so would create a security risk to the city's infrastructure and confidential/private data. In addition to managing computer hardware,there are multiple software programs the city utilizes and IT must manage that software by maintaining service agreements, applying service packs and software updates/upgrades, and ensuring software and hardware are compatible and work as expected and troubleshooting if they do not. In addition to the computer operating systems, Microsoft office software, and the software provide to the city through the LOGIS consortium, the city utilizes 20 other software programs.Though the city has software service agreements,the tasks listed above are the tasks that the city's IT staff still need to complete. City IT staff also determines whether an issue is a software problem or end-user error and takes the appropriate action to resolve the problem whether that is helping the end-user or contacting software support. The advances in technology have caused an increased threat to data privacy and security.There is a much greater need today to constantly and consistently monitor systems to assess security risks. From securing our buildings to securing city and resident data, IT must be able to effectively manage city systems to maintain security and the integrity of the system.This became more critical when the city began accepting credit card payments and is a good example of the increase to IT's workload as the city needed to become and stay PCI (Payment Card Industry) compliant. This included creating and maintaining a separate PCI compliant network specifically for processing credit cards, managing quarterly assessments and annual compliance audits, completing annual PCI assessments, ensuring all policies and procedures are in place and staff is appropriately trained on handling credit card data and equipment. Another relatively new component to ensuring data security is managing the issues related to employees wanting to and being allowed to utilize their own devices such as smart phones and tablets. Currently, the city has 1 IT Specialist solely dedicated to IT. However,to manage all that IT encompasses,the HR Director's role in IT has expanded and the Police Administrative Sergeant has increasingly undertaken a number of IT responsibilities. This has taken time away from their other responsibilities and is a model that is less effective and less productive in meeting the city's IT needs. If this position is approved, many of tasks currently done by the HR Director and the Administrative Sergeant will be shifted to this new position. The following is a list of the types of duties the new IT person would be responsible for: • Perform regular systems and security monitoring— o Ex. PCI compliance, plus implementation for taking additional credit card payments (e- Permits, electronic payments at RRC,Jim Bell Park if the referendum passes) o Ex. Monitoring reports to minimize the city's exposure to hacking and/or maximize the city's ability to recover as quickly as possible if a data breach occurs. • Research, recommend and implement IT solutions. This includes computer hardware, software changes and/or enhancements, application deployments, and infrastructure upgrades. o Ex. Improve on the city's secure faxing. The current system is not user friendly or reliable. o Ex. To be able to send encrypted (secure) email, when needed. o Instant messaging. Ex. With more training being done at our desks, having instant messaging would allow employees to instantly communicate with each other with questions and concerns regarding the topic being discussed. o At some point the city/LOGIS will need to replace JDE and CIS. These are enormous undertakings for which LOGIS will take the lead, but the city will need someone here to understand the local IT implications, help us to ask technical questions, etc. This same logic likely applies to other applications the city uses in other areas of the city such as ActiveNet. o File/Data Sharing. The city needs a way to easily and interactively share data. For example UB Voice Mails. In a perfect world,the city would have voice to email service (i.e. no one would have to listen to VM and write down all messages which takes a lot of time). They would be converted to text and emailed. o Laser Fiche upgrade/implementation. This person would take the lead on managing this upgrade as the changes are quite substantial. • Manage our surveillance camera and fiber network • In conjunction with our current IT person, manage our card access and VOIP systems. In addition to the duties outlined above,the intent is to have both positions cross trained in order to manage all systems in the event someone is out of the office; and to have some afterhours support for the Police, Fire and Liquor operations as there has been an increased need for technical support for these areas outside of regular business hours. Recommendation The requested action is for Council to approve a new IT position in the 2017 budget. Respectfully submitted, Brenda Wendlandt, SPHR Human Resources Director cc: File 1 i�, City of Farmington ril1S 430 Third Street ` ,. Farmington,Minnesota 651.280.6800•Fax 651.280.6899 r•Ap w www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Council and City Administrator FROM: Robin Hanson, Finance Director SUBJECT: Draft 2017 Budgets DATE: July 11, 2016 INTRODUCTION: Attached for your review are the summary pages for the draft 2017 budgets. The budgets were developed with the intent of continuing to provide core city services, align with the city's long-term 2030 financial plan and support your 2016/2017 council priorities. DISCUSSION: The 2017 draft General Fund budget requires a 4.94%levy and is summarized as follows: 2017 2016 Proposed Increase Budget Budget (Decrease) Revenues $3,051,055 3,117,189 66,134 Expenditures 11,798,225 12,244,895 446,670 Fiscal Disparities 2,104,764 2,077,080 (27,684) General Fund Levy 6,642,406 7,050,626 408,220 Debt Levy 2,970,848 3,037,903 67,055 Farmington Net Tax Levy $9,613,254 $10,088,529 $475,275 4.94% Revenues When compared to the 2016 amounts,the 2017 revenue estimates have been increased by $66,134. The following explain the major changes: Licenses and Permits The 2017 budget assumes $301,075 for building permits. Of this amount, $260,000 is for new construction residential permit revenue, which is comparable to actual 2015 levels. The 2016 budget is $265,000. For the first five and one-half months of 2016,the city has recorded$164,000 in new construction residential permit revenue for 2016. One forward- looking note: based on the limited availability of lots within the city the new construction residential permits are projected to decline to $130,000 in 2018. The remaining permit revenue for 2017 is for approximately$41,000 in commercial permit revenue. Year-to-date the city has recorded $53,000 in commercial rehab permits for 2016. Intergovernmental Based on recent history the combined MSA maintenance and fire aid revenues have been increased$47,000 and POST Training revenue has been reduced $14,000. The local government aid amounts will not be finalized until later this summer. This draft assumes the 2017 amount is the same as the amount to be received in 2016. Charges for Services Franchise fee revenue has been increased$20,000 to $120,000 for 2017. Fine and Forfeitures The fines and forfeitures revenues have been reduced$13,000 based on recent history. Investment Income Investment income has been increased reflecting General Fund's strengthening financial position. Miscellaneous Revenue Based on recent history the miscellaneous revenues budget has been reduced. You may recall 2015 included the planned use of a portion of the city's fund balance to transition to a new full-time fire chief. Transfers In A detailed break-down of the transfers in and out of the various funds is included as a separate exhibit in your packet. The `transfers in' to the General Fund are from the enterprise funds,to reimburse the General Fund for human resource and administrative costs which benefit the enterprise funds. Expenditures When compared to 2016,the 2017 General Fund expenditure amounts have increased$446,670. Generally, excluding human resource costs, each department's 2017 expenditures are similar to 2016. The primary reasons for the increase in expenditures related to increased human resource costs are discussed below: Human Resource Costs All of the budgets include estimated human resources costs based on approved union contracts and estimates for employee benefits and worker's compensation premiums. The 2017 amounts provide funding for the three new positions added in 2016. This allows the city to increase its presence in these and other areas as part of the city's ongoing reassembly of its staff: • shared solid waste/maintenance position(paid for by utility funds) o provide additional resources for solid waste and maintenance projects within the city • part-time building inspector o to support anticipated increased activity and provide assistance to the building official position • front desk/receptionist o provide a consistent presence at the front desk and enable other staff to increase the time they spend supporting community development and the fire department In addition, at this time, the 2017 budget provides funding for one additional staff person, a Systems Administrator, in the information technology(IT) area. The city's information technology infrastructure and ongoing maintenance are critical to the city's daily operations. For the next couple years, the Systems Administrator would be responsible for the areas listed below. Longer-term, staff expects this position would evolve into a Technology Manager position. • Perform regular systems and security monitoring—manage surveillance camera and card access systems. • Develop and maintain procedures and standards to ensure systems work as expected and work with LOGIS to manage archiving. • Maintain our networks including handling patches and upgrades. • Research,recommend and implement new IT solutions • Research,recommend and implement computer hardware and software enhancements, application deployments and infrastructure upgrades. • Manage PCI compliance requirements. Information Technology The overall information technology charges have increased as a result of the Systems Administrator position described above. Excluding the new position,the 2016 information technology charges approximate the 2017 amounts. A listing of the 2016 and 2017 expenditures is included in your packet. In addition,to the human resource costs changes explained above,the following reasons explain the more notable changes in the various department budgets: Administration There are three items to note 1)the human resource costs related for one staff position were moved to the Community Development budget to align with reporting lines, 2)the administrative reserve was eliminated, and 3)the Heritage Preservation Commission and related consulting services were eliminated. Finance and Risk Management The 2017 budget includes the new receptionist position which will report to the Finance Director. The increase is offset by the inclusion of the insurance deductible in the `transfers out' to the property casualty fund, rather than the Risk Management budget as was reflected in 2016. Police The increase for human resource costs in this budget has been reduced by the inclusion of $36,000 in the `transfers out' to the General Capital Equipment Fund as part of the city's long-term financial plan. These dollars, in conjunction with future funding,will purchase the following types of items: tasers,rifles, radios, body cameras,handguns, squad cameras, etc. Similar to last year,the budget for replacement vehicles is included in the `transfers out' to the General Capital Equipment Fund. Fire There are two items to note: 1) Corresponding to an increase in state fire aid,the pension pass through to fire relief has been increased, and 2) Similar to the Police budgets,the change in the Fire budget is offset by the inclusion of$61,545 in the `transfers out' to the General Capital Equipment Fund as part of the city's Fire Equipment CIP and long-term financial plan. These dollars, in conjunction with future funding, will purchase the following types of items: SCBA,turnout gear, gas meters, extrication tools, etc. Community Development The 2017 budget includes the transfer of one position from Administration to better align with reporting lines and the addition of a part-time building inspector. Engineering The natural resources budget includes $10,000 for Emerald Ash Borer preparation. Parks and Recreation The proposed 2017 budget includes the part-time administrative position at the Rambling River Center. Permanent Levy Adjustment and Delinquency Experience The 2017 budget does not include an amount for actual permanent levy adjustments. These amounts are not predictable. When these negative adjustments occur the city will rely on its fund balance to cover the deficiencies. Transfers Out The Transfers Out line item is comprised of two parts: LGA items and General Fund (non-LGA items). The proposed LGA funded items are listed in the first table,while the proposed General Fund(non-LGA funded) items are listed in the second table. Summary of Proposed LGA Uses Description Amount Fire CIP $150,000 Streets&Equipment CIP Gap Funding* 90,000 Building Maintenance 36,607 Total $276,607 Summary of General Fund (non-LGA) Uses Description Amount EDA $40,000 Recreation Capital Projects Fund—Arena 20,000 Capital Equipment Fund—2 Squads 85,000 Capital Equipment Fund—Police Equipment CIP 36,000 Capital Equipment Fund—Fire Equipment CIP 61,545 Sealcoating 350,000 Trail Maintenance 30,000 Building Maintenance 15,000 Township Road Maintenance Cost Sharing 3,000 Employee Expense Fund—Personnel Ins 13,022 Property/Liability Insurance Fund—Deductible Replenishment 20,000 Total $673,567 *The current Streets &Equipment CIP plan does not provide for any replacement vehicles until 2020. The 2017 LGA allocation helps bridge the gap. Specifically, Todd Reiten would assess the City's vehicles and determine if there are vehicles for which it no longer makes sense to repair. A recommendation would then be made to Council before this money was spent. Remaining monies, if any, would be captured in this fund to address the next vehicle replacement(s)when it is needed. The budget envisions that if LGA continues in 2018 and beyond a similar funding mechanism would be used to bridge the time from now until in 2020 when capital equipment funding began in the CIP. Fiscal Disparities—This amount will be finalized in August. Current draft includes $2,077,080 for fiscal disparities, a decrease from 2016 of$27,684. Debt Service Funds Levy The Debt Service Fund budget provides funding for scheduled debt principal and interest repayment obligations, as well as ongoing trustee, assessments, arbitrage and post-issuance compliance fees related to the City's debt. The levy is also used to continue to strengthen the cash flow for various debt issues as the City continues to work toward full compliance with the 105% funding requirement. The 2017 debt levy increase has been mitigated by the use of$100,000 in MSA funds. Special Revenue Funds EDA—The EDA budget includes a$40,000 `transfer in' from the General Fund. TIF—City Center—The City Center budget is blank, because the city intends to decertify this district in 2016. Park Improvement Fund—The Park Improvement Fund has planned expenditures in 2017 of $150,000 for Prairieview Park and is also the placeholder for$40,000 in planned liquor stores community investment transfers. Ice Arena—The ice arena budgets reflects the rate increase which went into effect July 1, 2016. Capital Projects Funds Road and Bridge Fund—The only planned disbursements are the operating transfers included on the operating transfers worksheet. Fire Capital Projects Fund—No planned vehicle purchases until 2019. In accordance with the Fire CIP money is being accumulated to pay cash for a new fire engine in 2019. General Capital Equipment Fund—Monies are transferred into this fund in accordance with the police vehicle,police equipment, and fire equipment CIP's. In addition$90,000 of LGA funds will be transferred into this fund for the Municipals Services Director to use to address vehicle needs until the city's comprehensive vehicle CIP begins in 2020. Maintenance Fund—The 2017 budget includes planned transfers for seal coating,trail maintenance, and building maintenance per their respective capital improvement plans. In addition the budget includes the receipt of MSA construction funds for the 195th street project. A portion of these funds are being used to reduce the 2017 debt levy by$100,000. The remaining funds are being transferred back to the Storm Water Trunk Fund to repay the funds to be borrowed later this year to pay the county for the remainder of the 195th street reconstruction project. There is also one new item. The city has cost sharing arrangements with the three townships for road maintenance. These costs do not occur on a regular basis. When they do occur they are large enough that the city needs to separately budget for them to ensure we have sufficient funds on hand that will not take away from other ongoing city street maintenance projects. The 2017 budget includes a$3,000 transfer from the General Fund into the new Township Road Maintenance line item. In addition staff is recommending$10,000 of the MSA construction reimbursement funds be transferred into this fund for initial funding. This will help cover the cost of one request already received this year from one of the local townships for approximately $5,000 for road maintenance. Enterprise Funds Solid Waste—The human resource costs for the Municipal Services Coordinator and new shared position are charged to the Solid Waste fund. The Sewer, Storm Water and Water Funds benefit from these two positions. Accordingly,these funds will be `transferring' in$64,000 to help pay for these two positions. Water --The 2017 budget reflects a planned rate increase per the long-term Water Plan. Streetlight -- The 2017 budget includes $35,000 for the continued transition to LED lights with Dakota Electric. Fund Balance Projections A worksheet has been included in your packet which details the actual fund balance for the past four years as well as projected 12/31/16 and 12/31/17 amounts. If all of the 2016 and 2017 revenue and expenditures were to occur as budgeted,the General Fund's 12/31/17 fund balance of$4,734,534 would drop below the city's 40%funding level target of$4,897,958 by $163,424. Tax Notes A brief history of the tax levy changes for the past five years are listed below: 2012 0.00% 2013 0.00% 2014 1.92% 2015 4.96% 2016 4.90% The residential homeowner's estimated market value (EMV) for next year increased from $214,737 to $223,029, an increase of 3.86%. The County estimates the market value for new construction in Farmington is $14.1 million. This translates to $157,386 in new tax capacity. Applying the city's 2016 tax rate to this amount would result in$93,188 of tax levy related to new construction. Based on the information available today, staff estimates the impact of a 4.94%increase on the average residential home with an estimated market value of$223,029 would be $52.71/year or $4.39/month. Additional Notes The proposed levy is 4.94%. This is less than the amount needed to fund ongoing equipment, vehicle and building maintenance needs. This is the amount council indicated was the maximum increase you could support and fits within the city's long-term financial plan. As you consider the budgets please keep the following in mind. 1. The attached budgets do not include the impact of the city's 2017 bond referendum. If question one passed,the estimated annual tax increase on a 2016 median value home of $212,787 for question one is $75.00 for 20 years. If both questions one and two are passed the estimated annual tax increase is $102 for 20 years. In addition annual operating costs, net of the currently budgeted pool subsidy of$72,000, are estimated to require an additional $115,000 in annual operating levy. 2. The attached budgets do not reflect any anticipated debt refundings. These refundings are not guaranteed and will not occur until after the preliminary levy is adopted. If the city is able to refund some of its debt later this year,the 2017 debt budget will be revised, accordingly. 3. The city has an accrued, unfunded liability for compensated absences of$850,000 as of December 31,2015. These amounts have historically been funded from current operations. As some of the more tenured employees begin to retire these amounts will be larger and will be more challenging to absorb. 4. The final fiscal disparities and local government aid amounts will not be known until late August. BUDGET IMPACT: All information is related to the development of the 2017 city budget and tax levy. The 2018 projected budget numbers have had minimal review; they are a work in progress. ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Ask questions of the proposed budgets and provide staff with direction for any needed revisions. 2. Provide staff with direction regarding reallocating $10,000 of the city's existing MSA construction fund reimbursement to the Maintenance Fund—Township Road Maintenance account to provide the initial source of funding for this ongoing activity. Department heads will be in attendance at the work session to answer any questions you may have or provide additional insight into their proposed budgets. Respectfully submitted, Robin Hanson, Finance Director o�Et► r City of Farmington 6g„_ p 430 Third Street Farmington, Minnesota 651.280.6800 -Fax 651.280.6899 •4 ° _ www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator FROM: Kevin Schorzman SUBJECT: Snow Fence Installation-Flagstaff Avenue DATE: August 8, 2016 INTRODUCTION One of the tasks associated with council's service delivery priority is enhanced snow and ice control efforts on Flagstaff Avenue. To that end, staff is proposing the installation of snow fence in an area from 190th Street north approximately 1,500 feet as shown on the attached map. The goal of this installation is to evaluate the effectiveness of the use of snow fence in areas adjacent to Flagstaff Avenue. DISCUSSION Over the past several winters, the city has received comments related to the condition of Flagstaff Avenue during winter weather events. Many of the comments are related to why Flagstaff Avenue north of the Farmington border is in better condition than the portion of Flagstaff Avenue located within the municipal boundary of Farmington. The main reason for this is simply the difference between a rural road and a road through a developed area. North of Farmington, Flagstaff Avenue goes through a developed residential neighborhood. In general, the development serves to block wind, and keep snow that is falling or has fallen from moving around. In the rural section through Farmington, open fields and a prevailing northwest wind in the winter tend to move snow great distances which usually ends up impacting Flagstaff Avenue. Installation of snow fence in certain areas along Flagstaff Avenue may control some of the movement of snow related to the open fields and prevailing winds, however, it will not have the same effect as development in proximity to the road. Even with the installation of snow fence, it is anticipated that the condition of Flagstaff Avenue in the rural areas will be significantly different that the condition of the road north of Farmington. Staff is suggesting that the city install two sections of snow fence in the fields north of 190th Street on the west side of Flagstaff this winter to test their effectiveness in reducing snow movement and thus potentially improving the condition of Flagstaff Avenue during the winter months. The first section will be approximately 1,500 feet long and would be located approximately 140 to 150 feet west of the west edge of the pavement. The second section would be located approximately 140 to 150 feet west of the first section and would be approximately 1,300 feet long. The location and spacing is based on several research papers on the subject, average winds and snow amounts, as well as the installation recommendations as shown on the attached document. In general, the sections would be constructed with four foot snow fence attached to seven foot tee posts that are installed approximately every 8 feet. The bottom of the snow fence will be approximately six inches off of the ground to provide the maximum effectiveness of each run. Staff is recommending two parallel installations as one would not provide enough storage for our typical winter precipitation. Staff has discussed this proposal with the property owners and they are willing to allow the city to install the snow fence once the crops are out of the field and it has been prepped for winter providing that the city remove the fence prior to farming operations next spring. BUDGET IMPACT Anticipated material costs for the installation of the two sections of snow fence is approximately$10,000. ACTION REQUESTED Discuss the proposal and provide direction to staff related to the installation of snow fence as shown on the attached map. ATTACHMENTS: Type Description o Exhibit Snow Fence Installation Proposal-Flagstaff Avenue © Exhibit Snow Fence Insallation Guidelines Snow Fonco. Section 2--: F ■ it , . i { , .. 1 1. • • .. £.tea *'xwr"".`; My.,..,,. - x • - _: .:_„-..)....-.,. ..44.:_..,-.,-, ,•,:•••..,....-_-. ...„, •1 1 ri.IJ . ■ • n ' �' t Snow Storage-Section 1 "Snow Storage-Section 2` ttte, ,.. : i 4 4 i mit . {` i 0 Yir=.'*OA ,Il -- 4 • ,y e 9 .49.4.4 94 a 9' lel. -1,_ ,,,.,,,,:dr:. f • -4-- :- I, vo.,.:. , , 4 ..... ....,.............. .,.. : ,_ ,. .. ,/ - , `. '"+- y'r tE v 2?. ..-� Y .. ., , '_.;.. .:,-, - y t +.1 0 6 1:2,400 o 145 290 ti r 0 40 80 US NETTING (https://www.usnetting.corn/) CUSTOM NETTING & INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS Snow Fence Installation Instructions Snow Fence Installation Instructions Snow fencing can eliminate the need for snow removal, lower pavement maintenance costs, and increase visibility and safety on the road. A well planned snow fencing program can save time and money. Following are installation instructions for snow fence. How Snow Fencing Works: Snow fencing reduces the wind speed, causing most blowing snow to fall behind the barrier. When the snow is at rest, the particles freeze together making a smooth snow drift. Steps to Installation: 1 . Research, determine variables ; Snow fencing is designed for snow storage. A thorough knowledge ��II of the problem is needed to estimate a sound solution. I NM {'gap • Wind Direction - This information can be found in aid boon meteorological data from weather stations, by examining drift features in area or aerial photographs, and by ^1i Director checking the orientation of vegetation, such as bent trees Attach fence to wood post or snow-caused abrasion on wooden poles. • Snow Transport - Estimate from wind speed records in the area. Keep in mind that in winds of less than 20 mph, 90% of the blown snow stays below 4 ft. In winds of less than 45 mph, 70% of the blowing snow remains below the 4 ft. mark. • Snow Fall - Look up the records for past years and estimate snow fall records for the problem area. 2. Design Design is critical to installing the most effective snow fencing for the area. • Porosity refers to the open area of a fence. A porosity of 40-50% is recommended to form the largest drifts. • Bottom Gap should be 10 - 15% of the fence height. Although in rough terrain or snow covered areas the bottom gap may be higher. This makes the fence less likely to be buried. • Windy Conditions warrant the use of ties or wood strips to attach the fence to wood posts (see illustration). • Anchoring the fence firmly is a necessity. In good soil, a six-foot fence post should be buried 2-1/2 ft. 3. Placement Correct placement is essential in installing effective snow fencing. Incorrect placement can make the snow drift problem worse. Fence posts should be spaced no more than 8 feet apart for 4 ft. snow fences. End posts should be 6 ft. or less from the adjacent post. The end post placement facilitates bracing. • Row - A drift can spread as far as 35 times the height of the fence. Therefore, the fence must be at least that far from the roadway and the distance may be farther because of irregular terrain. Also build the fence longer than the area that needs to be protected. Add 20 times the height of the fence on each end to account for wind variation. • Alignment - Generally place the fence parallel to the road if the wind is within 25 degrees of being perpendicular to the roadway. If the wind direction is parallel to the road, fences should be placed perpendicular to the prevailing wind direction. Placement may vary up to 25 degrees to avoid adverse terrain or to take advantage of favorable topography. • Multiple Rows - To avoid fence burial downwind leave 25 times the height in open area for snow drifts to form. With staggered fencing, make sure that all gaps are covered with following rows. Maintenance To ensure that the fence performs at its highest level, continual maintenance checks are essential. Check the anchoring system and look for missing and damaged parts periodically. Controlling a Snow Drift Fence 6'- Post Prevailing Wind Slowed wind Direction area Snow Drill 5"minimum A space The higher the fence off the ground, the further away the drift will start. Post buried Position the fence higher or lower depending on your drift requirements. If the 1 5'to 3' fence is directly on the ground it will be buried in the drift and reduce its effectiveness. When snow blows and drifts on roadways or driveways, the end result often includes a reduction in driver safety, degradation of road quality, and significant removal costs for drifted snow. Snow fences are also used to trap snow in dugouts for water storage. The value of a snow fence is clear; however, exactly how one works is commonly misunderstood. Snow fence is designed to CREATE drifts rather than to prevent them. Snow drifts form wherever the wind slows down, so the basics of drift control are (1) keep a blizzard wind moving, or (2) slow it down where you want the snowdrift. Snow fences act as windbreaks, causing blowing snow to be deposited as drifts where it is stored. Installing Snow Fence 8' past spacing Support wires Support wires for end posts for and posts 5" m nimumspace Ground Proper installation is critical. Snow fence should be positioned upwind of the desired drift area, noting the prevailing wind direction. Posts should be strong as they will be the weakest link where tensile strength is concerned (metal U-posts should not be used). Bury posts 1/3 their height and place no more than 8 feet apart. The fence should be pulled taught, and support wires should stabilize end posts to prevent sagging. Fence should be attached to the upwind side of the post to minimize tearing. There should be a 5" minimum gap at the bottom of the fence to prevent burying. The higher the fence from the ground, the further away the drift will start. © 1999-2016 U.S. Netting, Inc. All Rights Reserved. (/indeterminable.php). View Sitemap (https://www.usnetting.com/sitemap/) Privacy & Return Policy (https://www.usnetting.com/privacy-policy/)