HomeMy WebLinkAbout11.14.16 Work Session Packet City of Famington 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
November 14, 2016
6:30 PM
Farmington City Hall
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVE AGENDA
3. DISCUSSION ITEMS
(a) Dakota County Community Development Agency Presentation
(b) Updated Draft 2017 Budgets and Tax Levy
(c) Review of Seal Coating Program and Funding (Time Permitting)
4. CITY ADMINISTRATOR UPDATE
5. ADJOURN
0104�► City of Farmington
z 430 Third Street
Farmington, Minnesota
o 651.280.6800 -Fax 651.280.6899
Nvt.,,PO„� www.cifanmington.mn.us
TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator
FROM: David McKnight, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Dakota County Community Development Agency Presentation
DATE: November 14, 2016
INTRODUCTION
Dakota County Community Development Agency Executive Director Tony Shelter will be attending your
November 2016 work session. Mr. Schertler will be presenting information on a variety of topics related to
the CDA.
DISCUSSION
The Dakota County Community Development Agency plays a vital role in our community. Tony Schertler
has been the Executive Director for about one year. Tony will present information on the programs the
agency delivers, the strategic planning efforts underway and other issues.
Please feel free to ask questions you have on any issue related to the work this organization does in the
county and in Farmington.
BUDGET IMPACT
NA
ACTION REQUESTED
Hear the presentation from the Dakota County Community Development Agency and ask any questions you
have.
o i , City of Farmington
______
�. 430 Third Street
Farmington, Minnesota
� 651.280.6800 -Fax 651.280.6899
'•4PAO ° WWW.ci.farmington.mn.us
TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator
FROM: Robin Hanson, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Updated Draft 2017 Budgets and Tax Levy
DATE: November 14, 2016
INTRODUCTION
Please see the attached cover memo and related attachments.
DISCUSSION
Attached
BUDGET IMPACT
Attached
ACTION REQUESTED
Attached
ATTACHMENTS:
Type Description
D Cover Memo Updated Draft 2017 Budgets and Tax Levy
D Backup Material General Fund and Levy Summary
D Backup Material Debt Service Funds Summary
D Backup Material Special Revenue Funds Summary
D Backup Material Capital Projects Fund Summary
i Backup Material Enterprise Funds Summary
D Backup Material Transfers In, Transfers Out Summary
D Cover Memo IT Position Memo
4ikRiviy� City of Farmington
cz 430 Third Street
Farmington, Minnesota
A` 10 651.280.6800•Fax 651.280.6899
www.cilarmington.mn.us
TO: Mayor, Council and City Administrator
FROM: Robin Hanson, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Updated Draft 2017 Budgets and Tax Levy
DATE: November 14, 2016
INTRODUCTION:
Minnesota statutes require final property tax levies be certified to the county on or before
December 31. This workshop provides an opportunity for you to review the proposed final 2017
budgets and tax levy, before being asked to adopt the final budgets and levy amount at your
Monday, December 5, 2016 council meeting.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed budgets continue to provide:
• police, fire, streets, parks and recreation, and administrative services,
• to fund the city council's long-term financial planning strategies, and
• support council's 2016 strategic plan.
The proposed General Fund budget and net tax levy are as follows:
2017
Proposed
2016 Final
Budget Budget Change
General Fund Expenditures $11,798,225 $12,203,490 3.43%
Less:
General Fund Revenues 3,051,055 3,107,737 1.86%
Fiscal Disparities 2.104.764 2.136.834 1.52%
General Fund Levy 6,642,406 6,958,919
Debt Levy 2.970,848 3.037.903 2.26%
Proposed Farmington Net Tax Levy $9,613,254 $9,996,822 3.99%
The changes from the preliminary levy adopted at your September 6, 2016 meeting to the
proposed final levy are detailed below:
Preliminary Net Tax Levy September 6, 2016 $10,088,529
Decrease in Fines and Forfeitures Revenue 12,000
Decrease in Transfers Out— Building Maintenance (59,754)
Reduction in 2017 Fuel Budgets (25,000)
Decrease in Transfers Out—Police Equip CIP (11,400)
Reduction in City Hall Electric& Nat. Gas Budgets (4,000)
Net Other Reduced Expenditures (3,553)
Proposed Net Tax Levy September 6, 2016 $9,996,822
The explanation for the above changes is as follows:
• Decrease in Fines and Forfeitures Revenue — these revenues have continued to trend
downward. A $12,000 reduction has the 2017 budget amount in line with the pace of
actual 2016 receipts.
• Decrease in Transfers Out— Building Maintenance—The preliminary levy had the higher
than expected fiscal disparities revenues being allocated to the city's building
maintenance fund. Council would prefer these funds be used to lower the 2017 levy. To
mitigate this reduction council directed staff to allocate a portion of the higher than
expected 2016 revenues and lower than expected 2016 expenditures to the building
maintenance fund.
• Reduction in 2017 Fuel Budgets —Gas prices have trended lower the past couple years.
As a result 2017 fuel budgets have reduced. The city cannot control gas prices. Should
they return to the higher per gallon prices experienced a couple of years ago, the
reduced fuel budgets may not be enough and will need to be re-visited.
• Decrease in Transfers Out — Police Equip CIP — Council directed staff to allocate a
portion of the higher than expected 2016 revenues and lower than expected 2016
expenditures to address police equipment needs. As a way to lower the 2017 levy, the
budget has been reduced to the extent those items represented accelerated purchases.
• Reduction in City Hall Electric and Natural Gas Budgets —As a result of adjustments to
the set-back thermostats staff recommended lowering these two utility budgets for city
hall.
The Debt Funds, Special Funds, Capital Project Funds and Enterprise Funds budgets are
essentially unchanged from when you last reviewed them. Those budgets along with a
summary of the Transfers In and Transfers Out are included in your packet.
The draft budgets do not reflect any changes as a result of the new bond issues and inter fund
loan approved at your Monday, November 7 council meeting. The affected budgets will be
updated and included in the December 5, 2016 council meeting packet. The refinancing's
should not affect the General Fund or debt levy for 2017. The impact will affect 2018 and
beyond.
Staff has not focused on the 2018 budgets. That work will begin later this fall.
Constructing any budget is difficult. There is constant tension between available funding
sources and need.
The proposed 2017 final budgets and levy:
• Provides police, fire streets, parks and recreation, and administrative services,
• Funds human resource costs based on approved union contracts and estimates for
employee benefits and worker's compensation premiums
• Provides funding for the following positions approved and filled in 2016
• Part-time Building Inspector
• Full-time Front Desk/Receptionist
• Increased Fire Department complement
• Solid Waste/Maintenance position (utility funds pay)
• Provides funding for a new IT position as the city continues to reassemble and prioritize
its staffing needs. A memo is attached which reviews the need for this position and
answers questions previously raised by council
• Continues long-term funding for the:
• Fire Capital Improvement Plan (CIP),
• Farmington Fire Relief Association,
• Seal Coating CIP, and
• Trail Maintenance CIP.
• Addresses immediate police and fire equipment CIP needs
• Discontinues funding for the Heritage Preservation Commission
The 2017 budget does not fully fund the following areas (not a complete list):
• Additional staffing needs
• Building maintenance funding
• Compensated absences funding
• Emerald Ash Borer funding
• Full debt levy funding from the tax levy. MSA $'s were used in 2016 and is proposed for
2017; this reduces the amount of funding available for street maintenance.
• Park improvement CIP
Additional Notes
• The Recreational Facilities Referendum will be decided by the voters in November.
Tax Levy Impact
The following information has been updated to reflect the lower proposed tax levy and updated
information published by Dakota County.
The city has added $14.1 million to its overall market value as a result of 2015 (there is a one
year lag in those numbers being added) new construction, primarily residential. Applying the
city's 2016 tax rate, this translates to $92,675 in additional local property tax revenue.
In 2017 the estimated market value (EMV) for the average residential home in Farmington is
expected to be $223,029. This is a 3.9% increase from 2016.
The impact of the proposed 2017 tax levy for the city portion of the average residential
property's real estate taxes is expected to be an increase of$42.48.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The budget impact is summarized within the content of this memo.
ACTION REQUESTED:
• This evening's meeting provides one more opportunity for you to ask questions and
discuss the budget amongst yourselves before formally adopting the final budgets and
tax levy at your Monday, December 5, 2016 meeting.
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 40,000 (38.46)% 40,000 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 3,107,737 1.86% 2,971,705 (4.38)'
xpenditures
Administration 822,114 726,999 (11.57)% 870,744 19.77'
Human Resource 279,035 294,176 5.43% 313,253 6.48'
Finance and Risk Mgmt 681,973 740,102 8.52% 772,217 4.34'
Police 4,187,762 4,330,234 3.40% 4,551,957 5.12'
Fire 1,140,007 1,145,404 0.47% 1,452,141 26.78'
Community Development 604,498 725,021 19.94% 761,057 4.97'
Engineering 656,688 685,908 4.45% 724,279 5.59'
Municipal Services 1,245,499 1,278,532 2.65% 1,343,673 5.09'
Parks and Recreation 1,268,663 1,324,772 4.42% 1,404,535 6.02'
Perm Levy Adj('15,16,17) 5,379 (100.00)%
Transfers Out 906,607 952,342 5.04% 1,045,174 9.75'
Total Expenditures 11,798,225 12,203,490 3.43% 13,239,030 8.49'
:avenues Over(Under)Expenditures (8,747,170) (9,095,753) 3.99% (10,267,325) 12.88'
iscal Disparities 2,104,764 2,136,834 1.52% 2,049,396 (4.09)'
ieneral Fund Levy 6,642,406 6,958,919 4.77% 8,217,929 18.09'
Iebt 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% 3,434,373 13.05'
,g Credit 0
Farmington Net Tax Levy 9,613,254 9,996,822 3.99% 11,652,302 16.56'
)cation: Documents\FARMINGTON\Budget 2017-2018\1 General Fund Budget Summary Page 2016 Base
1/4/2016 12:26:08 PM
Debt Service Funds Summary
*Includes Fund 3005 (formerly 86A) as placeholder for Fire Truck loan
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 3,434,373
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 4,082,440'
Other Financing Sources
Bond Proceeds 3,050,000 0
Transfers In 946,525 1,878,552 339,552 346,552',
Transfers Out (3,305,294) (117,000) (166,000) (166,000)
Total Transfers 691,231 1,761,552 173,552 180,552
Change in Fund Balance 266,335 30,284 (301,787) (20,766)
1/8/2016 3:09:55 PM 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)
1/4/2016 12:30:15 PM 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) 172,474 174,177 174,347 174,347
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 11,631 560,782 560,7821
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 4,402,908 621,500 719,179 775,357
Total Expenditures 4,708,695 1,094,581 991,975 979,252
Transfers
Transfers In 3,994,219 983,607 1,495,320 1,688,152
Transfers Out (940,265) (1,754,000) (665,000) (772,000)
Total Transfers 3,053,954 (770,393) 830,320 916,152
Change in Fund Balance 120,155 (1,520,878) 642,255 738,624
1/4/2016 12:31:05 PM 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, 2,065,2191
Solid Waste(6300:6302) 2,024,997 1,927,295 1,986,2031 1,986,203,
Storm Water(6400:6405) 1,623,186 641,396 650,0031 740,449
Water(6500:6508) 1,541,411 1,677,698 1,813,0991 1,820,684
Streetlights(6600:6602) 223,454 219,380 220,838, 221,838
Total Revenues 8,542,286 7,669,321 7,902,626 8,007,107 j
Expenditures
Liquor Stores 885,118 934,208 962,953 982,8361
Sewer Operations 1,875,224 2,077,805 2,231,750 2,327,719
Solid Waste 1,658,124 2,072,302 1,905,0111 2,043,403
Storm Water 731,445 637,676 690,9951 667,926
Water 1,339,587 1,523,282 1,506,024, 1,506,3581,
Streetlights 173,212 222,100 266,200 242,200
Total Expenditures 6,662,710 7,467,373 7,562,933 7,770,442
Transfers
Transfers In 1,193,968 0 63,849 65,763'
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);
Change in Fund Balance 1,602,707 (1,110,975) (981,319) (1,118,863)
1/4/2016 12:31:52 PM Page 1 of
XM O
W O
a-co
n
E c
ii, LT_
o Vo
O m N a
Ca0 .4- N CO
CO C7 p II O
CO ON 0 CO 0
(D
0
(n
N O O O
aU O O O
L c o O o
N C C7 .Q Ch (h
C N n
O O C N
F N
2
co co N N
I, to CI r
c N- to
CpN m n n to
2 0 n a co
m
cD
0
to
o o 0
o 0 0
c o0 0 0 '
• cm 0 0 0
E co
H
J
o o o
o o N o o '
• U▪ O
o co
N co co O co
co
NN cc,to a a
p C v C N N N '
M `m :.--' E � E co 0 0 0
I---.
II N N j C .j
0U cL) &
p W W
N
0 0 0
C C V O O 0
C A To.
c _ C co co co
F' N .'- E O E N o N N
4, c a aco •s n' oa o
cn Wo cow 412
N LI-
N
C
N Co
II0 0 0 0 It
CO q o• y O O O 0 V m
co c E 5 - n 3 0 0 N- E m
co c Q a
c 0 U o LL °' N coi n
F2 v - m O
W a
CU CO
N
O
C4 i 0 0 O CC T
C a -o O o 0 O
i a LL O co O O N
Q N N a N N
0 '''''
d
N N
C
O O O O O E
Oo o O o ~
.
CO o co o CD CO C
co a a co 8 m
y
co a
cU p
O
0 o O
O o o U
• O O O C
O• N o o co o 0
m a U
0
LL .
O
N co r ca, CO co
co 7. r O Co co CO o
co co co_
a ro o- a c
N co, n a E
co E
Z O2
N
oO O
O o O ca
O CD O O E
c p O O O p
O N O O c
o
• R r---
a,
N5 C
O O O U D
O O O L T O
O O O
U
OS O O Nj N
c‘ca a cs,a N E I Y
Et U O O
LL o 0 o N• a,
0 0 0 o
o a m a
Z 16
QN .- O ~
N O
LL -o CS
,^� F O N
VN
O O o O 8 O
Z 00 O 00 00 CO "O N
La O a4 ' L
Q
I— N UO CO O
LL ¢ a m
W ii
4. 0 0 o o o o a 0 N0
O CO CO N CO N
O CO O CO ,
M 0 O N N N O N CO N CT) CO
OO a s a s CD a a a N O N
co o co r m r N r CD n CO N
T N N Coif
G
N I-
CL W CL--: Li LL
Q W_ CC Cr:
0 0 0 - E E E E E _,
Cow/ City of Farmington
430 Third Street
Farmington,Minnesota
' 651.280.6800•Fax 651.280.6899
.4�`a0
www.cilarmington.mn.us
TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, and City Administrator
FROM: Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Director
SUBJECT: Position Request- IT
DATE: November 14, 2016
Introduction
This memorandum provides information regarding the request for the city council to approve a new
position in Information Technology.
Discussion
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,vast changes in technology have provided opportunities for the city to accomplish its
goals more productively and efficiently. However,those changes have required an extensive
expansion of the city's IT capabilities and infrastructure; and city IT equipment can now be found in
every city facility.These changes also mean that the workload associated with keeping the systems
running efficiently has grown exponentially.
Today, our technology encompasses a network of individual workstations, mobile computers, iPads,
server networks including firewalls, switches, routers, printers, cell/smart phones, radio pagers, a
video surveillance system, card access system, VOIP telephone system, and a fiber network. All of
which allow us to communicate not only with each other but across organizations everywhere.
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.
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, work as expected
and troubleshooting when they do not.The city utilizes 20 software programs in addition to
computer operating systems, Microsoft office software, and software programs provided to the city
through the LOGIS consortium.Though the city has software service agreements,the tasks listed
above are the tasks that fall on the city's IT staff to complete. City IT staff also conducts the initial
assessment to determine 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 also brought 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
personal mobile devices (smart phones,tablets, etc.) and their ability to access city systems.
Currently,the city has 1 IT Specialist solely dedicated to IT. However, given the growth in the city's
technology needs, there is more work than one person can effectively manage.Therefore, in order to
manage all that IT encompasses, the HR Director and Police Administrative Sergeant have increasingly
undertaken a number of IT responsibilities.This has impacted their ability to accomplish other job
priorities. It should also be noted that the Community Development Director has also taken on IT
responsibilities as it relates to the city's fiber network and county broadband initiatives.
The following paragraphs provide answers to Council questions and provide the various options
available for managing information technology functions.
To answer the question "what is either not getting done or being done by other staff?"
The following is a list of the types of duties for which the new IT person would be responsible and
shows how that task is currently handled.
• Perform regular systems and security monitoring—
o Ex. PCI compliance, plus implementation for taking additional credit card payments (e-
Permits and electronic payments at RRC)—Rob, Brenda and LOGIS.
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. Not being done.
• Research, recommend and implement IT solutions.This includes computer hardware,
software changes and/or enhancements, application deployments, and infrastructure
upgrades. Brenda and Rob and other staff(e.g.- Robin identified software specific to finance)
o Ex. Improve on the city's secure faxing. The current system is not user friendly or
reliable.—Not being done.
o Ex. Be able to send encrypted (secure) email, when needed. Brenda has been
researching as time permits.
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. Brenda—Rob will
implement. Note: this has been on the task list for the past year.
o At some point the city/LOGIS will need to replace JDE (finance, human resources, and
payroll software and CIS (utility billing software). 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 applies
to other applications the city uses in other areas of the city such as ActiveNet. No pro-
active work being done.
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. Presently, staff spends 30—60 minutes every day writing down UB
voicemails).They would be converted to text and emailed. Brenda or other staff in
reacting to external forces necessitating the change.
o Laser Fiche upgrade/implementation.This person would take the lead on managing
this upgrade, understand and become a subject matter expert on workflow
functionality as the changes are quite substantial. Brenda
• Manage video surveillance cameras (including retrieving video as needed). Jim C.
• Fiber network/Broadband initiatives.Adam, Brenda(Rob and LOGIS maintain current Fiber)
• In conjunction with our current IT person, manage our card access and VOIP systems.Jim C.
and Brenda
• After hours support for Police, Fire and Liquor Operations. Unless it is a critical issue, the
issue/problem is not address until normal business hours. If critical,Jim C., Brenda or Rob may
be asked to respond to the issue.
• Back-up to cover for absences. None unless issue is critical(network outages, system failure(s))
To answer the question "Are there educational opportunities to expand the skills of the current IT
employee?"
Yes-there are educational opportunities available. However, it is not a matter of skill set but a matter
of workload as illustrated in the paragraphs above. As previously mentioned, the city's information
technology has grown to a level where there are multiple people trying to meet the city's current IT
needs. Therefore, expanding the skills of current employees will mean the skill set is there but tasks
will either remain undone or continue to fall on non-IT employees. In fact, helpdesk support (assisting
employees with computing issues) is where the majority of the current staff person's time is spent
and often, employees are frustrated as they have to wait longer to get their IT issues resolved as this
impacts service to our residents.
For the question "what is the cost of outsourcing to perform a set of group of IT duties?"
In looking at outsourcing, there are a number of options staff has considered. Those options with the
associated cost estimates are as follows:
Option 1: Wherever possible, expand current maintenance agreements to cover tasks that are
typically performed by city staff. For example, three specific agreements that could be upgraded are
the agreements for the VoIP, video surveillance and card access security systems.The cost to increase
these 3 agreements is estimated to be $60,340. Staff is still working with other vendors to determine
what additional costs they would charge for expanded maintenance agreements.
Option 2: Increase support through LOGIS. As members of the LOGIS consortium, the city currently
utilizes LOGIS support on an as needed basis. Staff asked LOGIS for a quote to provide additional IT
support to cover the tasks outlined earlier. Under this option, LOGIS would not be able to provide
support for everything on the proposed list of responsibilities and therefore, is proposed providing
.70 FTE with a per hour rate of $110.00 per hour annualized to $160,160. Additionally, incidents
would be submitted through their helpdesk and be completed based on the order in which it was
received and the priority level set by LOGIS.
Option 3: Outsource with another IT company. Staff contacted several IT companies and asked for
estimates for IT support including options for afterhours support in order to better serve both public
safety and liquor operations. Please note staff provided the same information and requested the
same type of service from LOGIS in order to make an "apples to apples" comparison. After providing
each company with the types of tasks to be completed, each commented that given the broad range
of tasks listed it would be difficult to provide a set rate. Therefore, each company provided an
estimated salary range based on those duties but did not opine on the number of hours the city
would need to complete the IT responsibilities. This is because, in the process of negotiation, it could
be determined that only a portion of the IT tasks could be accomplished by a consultant. Those
estimates ranged from $50 to $110 per hour.
To answer the question "What services does the city gain by adding this position?"
The city gains better management and maintenance of the city's information technology. Better
management includes pro-actively evaluating systems in order to understand and have solutions
ready when a product reaches the end of its life cycle; analyzing systems to minimize the risk whether
that risk is to the security of our systems and/or data, or whether that risk is lost productivity or lost
sales due to system failures. Better maintenance means proactively monitoring systems, keeping
code current and being able to identify potential issues before they become problems.
Adding this position will also provide for greater efficiency in handling IT issues because someone
with the training and experience in IT is better able to identify and resolve issues more expediently
than those who do not have that expertise.
In addition,the intent is to have both positions cross-trained in ensure continuity of service in the
event someone is out of the office; and to have better afterhours support for the Police, Fire and
Liquor operations to meet the increased need for technical support for these areas outside of regular
business hours.
To answer the question,what if we do nothing?
The city can continue to manage IT services as is does today. However, based on the above
information and based on the volume of tickets submitted to IT Support, this means the city accepts
that work will not be done in other areas in order to handle technology needs, employees will wait
longer to have computer issues addressed which may affect service to residents, new technologies
will take longer to research and deploy, and the city will continue to take on more risk with regards to
system and data security.
In conclusion, staff believes the most effective and productive solution is to add a new IT position in
the 2017 budget.
Recommendation
The requested action is for the city council to approve a new IT position in the 2017 budget.
4144 City of Farmington
430 Third Street
. -,� Farmington, Minnesota
651.280.6800 -Fax 651.280.6899
0
.,, a°_ www.cifarmington.mn.us
TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator
FROM: David McKnight, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Review of Seal Coating Program and Funding(Time Permitting)
DATE: November 14, 2016
INTRODUCTION
A few of you have asked for a review/update on our seal coating program and funding. Kevin Schorzman
provided information on this program that I will walk through at your November work session.
DISCUSSION
Farmington started a sealcoating program a few decades ago for the purpose of extending the life of city
streets. All city streets are sealcoated once every seven years. A map of the schedule for seal coating for the
years 2017-2023 is included for your review.
A number of years ago the city council started to include$350,000 in the budget each year for seal coating.
This amount was determined looking at the seven year cycle of this project and having enough money in this
fund to cover the cost over the seven year cycle. Due to the schedule of streets to be seal coated some year
require more dollars than others. The$350,000 was determined to provide enough annual funding to cover
the seven year cycle that runs from 2012 to 2018.
The years 2017 and 2018 will represent years six and seven of the current seven year sealcoat cycle. Staff
estimates that the year end balance in this fund at the end of 2017 will be approximately$265,829.45 and
$220,241.75 at the end of 2018. To better understand if$350,000 is the correct amount for the city to
include in our annual budget each year we played out a number of scenarios for future costs and their
anticipated increase.
Included with this memo is a spreadsheet that shows the next sealcoat cycle for the years 2019-2025. Staff
estimates that we will have$220,241.75 in the sealcoat fund to start this cycle. We have also looked at
anticipated increases in the cost of sealcoating. The spreadsheet shows our annual estimated cost of the
program by year, the available funds if we continue to provide$350,000 per year and the fund balance at the
end of each year. As you will see the seal coating fund will have the following balance at the end of 2025
based on possible increases to the cost of seal coating by the following percentages:
2% Increase Per Year $108,950.40
3% Increase Per Year ($72,079.66)
4% Increase Per Year ($263,968.00)
5% Increase Per Year ($467,252.04)
A line graph showing this information by year is included for your review.
The historical seal coat cost per square yard from 2002 through 2016 is included for your review. The
takeaway from this chart is that while gas tends to follow crude oil prices, seal coating does not. Another
takeaway is that if you did a linear increase from 2002 to 2016, the average increase in seal coating cost is
approximately four percent.
Some communities chose not to seal cost but rather perform 15 year mill and overlays. For discussion, in
2016 dollars, the following comparison is offered:
Seal Coating for 15 Years at$350,000 per year equals $5.25 million. A 1 inch overlay of every street in the
city would equal$7.5 million and a 1.5 inch overlay would equal$10 million.
Seal coating does not eliminate the need to do more aggressive maintenance at some point, but it will
maximize the life of the street and extend the period of time between more costly overlays.
BUDGET IMPACT
Included in the information above.
ACTION REQUESTED
Review the information included in this memo, ask any questions you may have and provide city staff with
guidance on this program for the future.
ATTACHMENTS:
Type Description
D Backup Material Seal Coating Information Charts
7 YEAR CYCLE CRACK SEAL
AND SEAL COAT PROGRAM
3-1-[---ii .``_1_\-1,✓`1__.-a` Legend
-l- ' ,- I -- -.Area 2-2016 Crack Seal/2017 Seal Coat
'. 1.4 � ,( 1 SE J I Area 3-2017 Crack Seal/2016 Seal Coat
- ((II —Area A-2016 Crack Seal/2019 Seal Coat
—.1 I rr
I__\ Area 5.2019 Crack Seal/2020 Seal Coat
!- —Area 6-2020 Crack Seal/2021 Seal Coat
1--'11:3—
1:+-a
Balk Area 7-2021 Crack Seal!2022 Seal Coat
111181"1611811
� —Area 1-2022 Crack Seal/2023 Seal Coat
,.".City Boundary
Stre
� •� � SVoots
r[tt[ 4\J/ 11.. itOWNJ
E --E
ipasiii.- v .,
// /..,_ .
, ,r, „)
i _ . 1 144),
_ . , -.1 I , , _ , _..., cc,
1 .-c\\ - l( . �E
-"' 11 si ,,,L, \.9
111 / —:--1- -..-, i
f m ix _-�.-
. 1 ti
f _IA�il R.ri}
r':\
—J.-- -
_. VII— P v
:, J _. Ill 1. -
3 11111 ,`t i I■■ ._
-. t ri .
rr-_. I -----,
-iM ' j
_I ....1 sm ..4 A__)„,__
N
V0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2
Milesfi41
r'A PROV��`
Date:10/31/2016
U) u) CO Nr r- Is O N CO U) U) C) O C) M CD NI-
4..
I,_ Nr N r C) O Nt M CO Nt Ps CO U) N CO M V' O
N CD r- CD CD 'V' r- CO M 6) N C) 6) . r- O) O r- O O N
> U N 'ct M N U) O d' ti > o N �' O �t U) I� N N up
O c CO N Cn CO O CA v v 0 O C Co N C) Nr- r- OD CD N
t6 U) O 0') r- CD N- 'V' c\ (6 Z' to O r- Co 6) C') Co O h
i CD CO N U) CO CO M O v •CO CE QD N O CO M U) H CO CO
C6 CO N N N M M M tt 66 CO N N N N N r' rCLI NI-
-
U C)
ER ER ER EA EA EA ER ER ER EA 64 OA ER 6R ER ER ER ER
N N U) U) CO NI- r' r- 0) N N N U) U) CD O O M CD CD
CO 00 V N- r- C) CD V' d' M CO W 4 r` op U) N CO M U)
Cl) co U) O C) 6) d' CO M CC) 0 In CD 6) CO r• O d)
O SD Cl) O N M Cr N U) CD N7 O .0 Cl) O N 'Cr 0 'Cr U) N- N- Ps
C) C6 77 C) CO N U) CO O CD V' V' 0) C6 ID CD Co N CD N r- r- Co M
CO 7,5 = CO Cn O M Ps CD Ps V' V CO -di m O Cn O r- 03 C) CO CO CD
ti > u_ N r- 0 r- 00 LU I- > W N ti U) CO CO O N CO
v Q Co CO In Co r- N co r- v d- < CO CO In Cn CO U) U) rn
6A ER EA ER ER ER ER Eft eA ER ER CR 64 6R 64 ER 64 ER ER 69-
e„,51 Cl) rs O Ps V 00 4 M CO COO r- O U) CD r- CO 4 O N
0 'O Cn M N- U) N O 'V CD r' CD U 73 M CO Ps CO M N CO N CO CO
M Ca .,, 0 CO I- N C) U) M 'Cr M N (j CO r- 6) N r- OD C)
(- CCS r- CO CD C'O N Is U) U) N (C r- CO CO U) CD CO O CD M
V17. � ornrcoODovoVn m E 15oLnMcoornM � CO
D - U) CO U) Co r- M O O - D r- U) N C) CD U) 'Cr CD CD
C7) Cl) C O CD r- C') 'Cr co 0) CD CO CO N C O CD CO CO CD M N Co U7
C W C U) C') M N C*) M N CO V C W C U) M M N 01 V CO Ps U)
c Q 64 ER ER K4 eft EA to EA CA E < ER EA EA EA ER ER ER fR EA
c c
'O r M 0 0 N CO 44- U) m Ps CO O O r- N M tt U) h h M N CO CD CO M CO NI-
N N N N N N N N r- N N N N N N M O O M U) r- N 00 O
CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N CO N M p r Ni CL) CO rU N
Ps CO CD U) d' M M N Cn U)
O CO O O ti h O U) N
CO U) co N cov M a> co
Cn CD co_ U) C) Ps LU 0 Nt
r- r- r- CVNC'• )
CA EA EA ER EA EA ER ER EA 69
r
ro CO r1 N O p CD N O
co o O N MO r- M CO O
C) NCO ' O66NC') Co
Ps CO N O '7 CO C6 O N- O
O CO Cl) n CD QD CD M OCD
zet its? _ ,—CO UO) 0)) N N M Os W CMO
Cn WNCnCDMCflMODN
r- r- r- NNM• M
ER EA-64696A 69-6969.6969
U1C0ON01Cnr- N0 00coin0NCOha PsV-
L. 'Q
r- W N M O r- co ' Ni- P Ur- CO D UO M O CO CO CD CO CO UNP CO
CO Nco UN- CODfWUNODr> COC) OCD
O C D V V M z-(7)
) U) nM 6) rC
O C CO N M r- CD N CD 6) O CO M O O 6) V' CD O
(6 U) O 'Cr V Cb N N. M co- +16 U) O c-CD U) Co -4' co M co (0 C") 6) r— CO N N CO N
(Cl CO N N O N N 0 r- O C6 CO N M N O 'et CD C) CO CO U) r- O U) M N r- CD P-
M
CO CO N N N d' 'Cr 'Cr U) N r- C6 m N N N M M CV N N U) CA N Cl) CO N Cn N CO
() 0 V.' .- V-. NNM• M
ER EA CA ER EA-69-ER ER 64 ER ER ER ER EA EA 64 ER EA 64 ER 6464 ER 64 EA 64 ER EA
N N Cn Cn O N M Cn r- CV N N Cn Cn CO U) O N Cfl co N- h N 0 CD r` r- O N N
CO OO 'It 00 N M CD ti M 00 CO h U) NI' r- CO CO NT M O O CO rt CD r- Cn tt nr
U) U) (A r U) U) N- W CO COCl) N U) O r- CD r— 4 In CO M CO V O O Cb U7 CD CD U) U)
O .0 Cl) O N 'Cr NI- r- r C) Cn U) O .0 C/) O N 4 n O Cfl N M O r CO CO CD CO O 'It U) U)
CD CO 77 CD CO N V M U) CC) N M O N 'a CD CO N M r- C) N C) Cn O Cfl 4 Cl) M co O U) C) CD
CO Id j cso u) c) -4- v- co CV Is- V) CO 'Cq coinOr- a) toc ' Ca (NI cc;NNo5Nr-o Mr- r:
r— > u_ N r` N Cn N Ps U) CO r— > W N Ps CD Ps U) CD 'Cr U) CO U) U) r~ CD U) r- CO r- r-
NtQ CO CO U) CO I- N- r— CO U) 'Yr .c( M CO U) U) OD U) O N rn CD Cl.NI:rsr- 'rtOU) Cl)
r- r- r•' CV N M• o) C'')
64 ER 64 64 EA CA EA 69-Ea (A ER ER EA ER ER 64 EA ER ER 64 ER 64 64 64 ER 64 ER ER ER EA-
Cl) ti O d' CO CD ti U) CD 00 O a) r- p co r- U) Co r- co co N N N N N N N N N
O CO Ps CD Cn CD V: r' CO CD 0 N M r r r- M N r N 'Cr > CO CO CO CO CO 00 CO CO CO
N (a N oCONU) Or- nC7OU) 'd' coo N oCOriMr- MODCDCDCO C) IriUiCnUiUirr) CC) IfjU)
r- 0DC) MC) r- '7OO CJI- COCOCOMMCOMCO J000000000
C° (C U p U) r- r- r� 6) Ps U) CC (C O U) CD r- N ti N coU) O CD O 6) 6) 6) lD O O)
E CO r- Cn U) O U) U) '7 V' �' m E (Cl U) CA N M r- M Co O C CO O CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
cn:_. D CO O C) N N U) CO 4 U) C7)U D CO 6) CO U) N O O M N 'a N ti N N N ti N n N
C M C U) CO N N M CO N Co '' C W = U) M M N M rt M Ps U) C CO r- U7 co_N U) C) N Cfl
'EW Q 'C Q c �.-- r- NNNC�) M
•- EA ER ER ER EA EA EA 6464 •) 6R ER 64 ER ER 64 ER d3 EA 0- Cf}EA ER 64443 Eft 6464 CA
r- CO CD O N M cr U7 rte. CD CD O N M U) Ps 00 C) 0 r- N M Vt. U)
CO r- r- r- N N N N N N CO r- r- r NNN N N N r' . r- NNNNN N
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
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
tiO
C
v TO
IL _1 N m T
1
Ln(N
O
N
-
b^
WC
\1\11\ 0
C
N
W
m
CC N
0
T= N
^V^,,
TW
Q N
N
O
N
N
O
N
eta
C O
N
O
N
COCU
O
N
03
C O
N
I-I
O
N
O O O O 0 0 O 0 O
iJ}
O
O O O O O O O O
O O O 0 O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O
O O o O O O Ln O O
si' [n M N N e--I c-I
I./1-
VT i/} i? i? i/} i/} i/} i?
cu
o
U _
0 -o
v
Til
�f1
ri
O
N
i-1
N
L
-N
W
L
ON
V
N
0-
V)
N
cn s-
ora
11)
(NI
>-
CO -
Ooo
o
O
N
ra
W
(13_ N
11..} Lc)�i
O oN
Lc)
T
i O
N
O
O
N
N
N
O
p O O
O
O <� ih th
I
to
0 H +,