06/09/2015 - City Council SpecialSPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY
JUNE 9, 2015
5:30 P.M.
EAGAN ROOM-EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER
AGENDA
I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
II. VISITORS TO BE HEARD
III. UPDATE ON DAKOTA COUNTY BROADBAND STUDY
IV. CITY CAPITAL/ SPACE NEEDS PROJECTS SCHEDULE AND FINANCING
V. 2016 BUDGET PROCESS UPDATE
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Agenda Information Memo
June 9, 2015 Eagan Special City Council Workshop
III. Update on Dakota County Broadband Study
Direction For Consideration:
This is an informational item and no specific action is required.
Facts:
➢ There is a long history of discussions on the possibility of broadband network
collaboration in Dakota County. The concept was discussed with other HiPP iniatives in
the past and has moved onto the City -County managers group to be reviewed further.
The Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA), the County and the Dakota
County cities worked on the concept and decided to perform a study to review technical
and policy issues of moving forward on this concept. With the CDA stepping forward
and agreeing to be the implementing agency, it hired Craig Ebeling as the local
consultant to review this process with the help of Design Nine of Blacksburg, Virginia.
➢ Craig Ebeling and Design Nine have interviewed County and City staff to go through
existing resources to get an overview what resources the County and Cities had and
discuss the concept of what collaboration could bring in terms of connectivity and
economic development to the County and Cities involved. Through this process, it was
determined that between the existing agencies, there was a lot of unused fiber strands
that could potentially be used to enhance other agencies in the County for institutional
(I -NET) purposes. In addition, it was discussed whether the County and Cities would be
interested in using unused strands for Open Access commercial (C -NET) purposes.
Based off this discussion, Design Nine put together a report outlining various options
that we could pursue to advance fiber resources and management within the County.
The report is quite technical and lengthy, over 140 pages. Staff from various agencies
have been meeting several times over the past few months in order to reduce its bulk,
highlight the policy issues understand the technical issues to prepare a summarized
version for decision makers to review.
➢ The core recommendation of the report is that the County and its Cities form a joint
powers agreement (JPA) agency for the purpose of creating a shared institutional
network (I -NET) using existing and supplemental publicly owned facilities for the
operational usage of all members. In addition, this network could potentially provide an
Open Access, wholesale service to internet service providers (ISP) giving our Eagan
businesses reasonably priced broadband services while aiding the region in economic
development (C -NET).
➢ A JPA between County agencies could streamline operational efficiencies for all agencies
involved as well as reducing costs for all involved due to economies of scale. Placing this
fiber infrastructure in a JPA and centrally managing these facilities with one organization
should increase operational expertise in fiber management and reduce workload for all
participating city staff.
➢ From an I -NET perspective, interconnecting networks between agencies should
strengthen the Cities and Counties core networks and provide redundancy among its
members. This network could assist with off-site storage, backups, disaster recovery,
etc. From a C -NET perspective, interconnecting these networks may provide companies
with multiple locations throughout the County a fast, cost effective network to utilize
and interconnect sites, do off-site storage, backups, disaster recovery, etc.
➢ This initiative could strengthen the use of AccessEagan resources already installed by
other interconnecting for I -NET and C -NET purposes. The County is planning on utilizing
AccessEagan resources for traffic light projects, 800 Mhtz project and miscellaneous
other connectivity projects throughout Eagan. In addition, with AccessEagan's
connection to DataBank, this maybe a central meeting location for directing traffic out
to the internet for both I -NET and C -NET purposes.
➢ Craig Ebeling and Lisa Alfson from the Community Development Agency (CDA) will be
present to give an update on the status of the countywide broadband efforts and will go
through a series of Powerpoint slides that will explain some of the process and progress
to date.
Attachments: (1)
III. -1 PowerPoint Presentation
Broadband Initiative Update
City of Eagan
June 9, 2015
Where are we and how did we get here?
•Long history of discussions on broadband collaboration in the county
•HiPP Initiatives - Dark Fiber Subcommittee – Final report in 2012 recommending more technical and legal study
•HiPP Steering Committee assigned implementation to C-C Managers
•C-C Managers worked through 2013 and determined to seek proposals to address policy, legal and technical issues
•Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA) agreed to be the study-implementing agency - CDA 1/3 of the costs, County 1/3, and cities shared 1/3 based upon population
•Fall of 2013 RFP - contract with Design Nine of Blacksburg, Virginia
•Design Nine began in April, 2014 and finished in November
•The final draft has been reviewed by the C-C Managers Group and has been shared with the staff people of each city and the county as well as Mayor Managers group
Diagram of a
Modern Broadband
Network:
Fiber and Wireless
Why Fiber?
•30+ year asset with unlimited bandwidth potential
•Capacity to meet the growing demand of both residents and
businesses:
–Not just internet
–Emerging technologies:
Advanced video and multimedia services
HD videoconferencing
Digital television, streaming videos
Ability to work from home a growing competitive issue for the county
–Multiple devices and users at one time
–Bandwidth need grows 25-50% per year
What is happening in Dakota County now?
- County and cities have made substantial investments in
fiber and conduit to improve delivery of services (examples
follow) and have a substantial commitment going forward to
deploy more fiber
-Apple Valley has worked with the County, Eagan, Burnsville,
ISD 196 and others to create a shared fiber route and owns
10 miles of fiber of its own
-Farmington owns 5 miles of fiber for municipal use
What is happening in Dakota County now ?
-The NDC4 cities have worked cooperatively with Dakota
County and TIES to bring non-cable-franchise fiber into the
area – hugely successful collaboration
-Burnsville and Eagan both have significant fiber assets and
have made them available for private sector use
-The county and its cities are experiencing very stiff
competition for economic development from Scott County
and other areas – broadband availability has been a factor
-The County and several cities are members of LOGIS, the
DCC and other consortia
Existing Fiber Assets within Dakota County –
Example Communities
State of MN 26 miles
City of West St. Paul 2.5 miles
City of South St. Paul 0.1 mile
City of Rosemount 1.2 miles
City of Farmington 4.8 miles
City of Eagan 17 miles
City of Burnsville 27 miles
City of Apple Valley 10 miles
Dakota County 122 miles
Challenges
- Current city/county fiber investments are not necessarily
leading toward an integrated countywide system
- Limited ability to use assets as an economic development
tool
-Current ad hoc approach to brokering individual JPAs is time
consuming and costly
-Private sector is not making upgrades and investments
quickly
Challenges
-Mergers within the cable industry are making things more
complicated and uncertain - Some franchise provided
services may not be renewed
-Much unused conduit/fiber capacity
-Opportunities may possibly be missed because of time
required for negotiating agreements - Business relocation
decisions often made in short time frames--don’t want to
lose jobs because fiber agreements are not in place
-Management of existing and growing network assets is
stressing existing IT staff
Consolidated I-Net and the C-Net Overview
-Existing Institutional Network (I-Net) in various communities
is already delivering direct and measurable savings to
taxpayers through reduced costs
-Expanded/Consolidated I-Net logically extends what is
already happening in the county and the cities
- A Commercial Network (C-Net) would make fiber capacity
available for business use and economic development county
wide
Consolidated I-Net and the C-Net Overview
-C-Net and I-Net have different use patterns, leading to
more efficient use of fiber assets
-C-Net revenue can offset first-cost of infrastructure and
operational costs
-Current and future fiber assets will receive more use
-More opportunity for joint projects and increased savings
-Less legal cost and effort
-The “Cost of Doing Nothing”
Benefits of Consolidated I-Net
•Umbrella management entity reduces costs for all members
-Sharing fiber is quicker and easier
-One stop management and tracking of fiber assets
•Improved traffic management reduces carbon footprint
•Eliminates redundant management costs, improves resiliency and
reliability of government services
- Public safety, fire/rescue, water/sewer monitoring, etc.
•Reduced cost of fiber maintenance and other asset management
•I-Net necessary step to developing the C-Net
Benefits of C-Net
•Leverages existing investments by County and cities
•Maximizes benefits of future County and city investments
•Increases bandwidth and speed and reduces service- cost to
businesses
•Powerful business recruitment tool
–Job creation and retention
–“We can give you whatever amount of bandwidth you need to run
your business”
•Creates revenue streams to pay back capital investments
•Attracts further private investment for residential fiber
Recommendations
•Invest in an enhanced / consolidated I-Net
•Implement a wholesale, open access, multi-service business
model - government does not offer any direct retail business
or residential services
•Implement a JPA governance model for both the I-Net and
the C-Net
•Construct additional fiber routes needed for improved
connectivity
•Create the C-Net once the enhanced I-Net is in operation
Recommended Enhanced
I-Net Fiber
Routes
•21 miles of new fiber
•Connects an estimated 75
additional local gov’t facilities
•Phase 1 is 9 miles and connects 27
buildings
•Phase 2 is 12.2 miles and connects
48 buildings
•Estimated cost is $3.4 million
Next Steps
Partner Organization Staff Members Prepare Draft
Framework for Joint Powers Agreement (JPA)
Update Local Elected Officials - Ongoing
Formulation of JPA
Update Local Elected Officials
Consideration of and Adoption of JPA By Members
Implementation
Questions & Discussion
Agenda Information Memo
June 9, 2015 Eagan Special City Council Workshop
IV. City Capital / Space Needs Projects Schedule And Financing
Actions To Be Considered:
➢ Provide feedback and direction on the possible schedule for the sale of the bonds and the
construction of the Fire Station #1 project, and renovation and expansion of the Central
Maintenance Facility and the City Hall/Police Station buildings. Specifically:
o Is the City Council in support of moving forward with the proposed schedule of
construction and financing plans?
o To what extent does the City Council support using excess General Fund balance to
reduce the amount of borrowing needed?
➢ Provide direction on the use of the Fire Administration building. Specifically:
o Does the City Council wish to engage a broker to actively market the Fire Administration
building?
FACTS regarding the possible bond sale and construction schedule:
➢ Throughout the last two years, the City Council has received information about the need for
and estimated project costs for the construction of a new Fire Station 1 on City -owned
property located at Blackhawk Road and Diffley Road.
➢ The original Fire Station cost estimate of $4,550,000 did not include furniture, fixtures and
equipment (FF&E). In addition, construction costs have spiked upward since the original
estimate was done. With FF&E, contingency, and higher construction costs, the project
estimate was revised to $6,741,505.
➢ At the September 9, 2014 City Council Workshop, results of the space needs study for the
Central Maintenance Facility project were presented. The report included a Phase 1 estimated
project cost of $4,581,000 and a Phase 2 project cost of $3,580,000 for a total project cost of
$8,161,000, excluding contingency and inflation. Updated costs, including contingency and
inflation, put the total project at $9,986,807.
➢ At the March 10, 2015 City Council Workshop, results of the space needs study for the Police
Station and City Hall project were presented. Total construction project costs at that time were
estimated at $8,653,000. When taking into account inflation and contingency, and based on a
start date in 2018, the total original project cost was estimated at $9,902,765.
Agenda Information Memo
June 9, 2015 Eagan Special City Council Workshop
➢ With assistance from the architectural consultants, staff have scrutinized all three projects over
the past two months to identify areas where costs could be reduced. That review has resulted
in proposed reductions totaling $2,371,781:
Proposed
year of
Construction
Project
2016
Fire Station 1
2016
Maintenance Facility - Phase 1
2018
Maintenance Facility - Phase 2
2018 Police/City Hall
Updated cost
of original
project Proposed Revised
(incl contingcy project project cost
& inflation) reductions estimate
$ 6,741,505 $ (1,009,087) $ 5,732,418
5,472,245 (289,904) 5,182,341
4,514,562 (482,790) 4,031,772
9,902,765 (590,000) 9,312,765
Totals $ 26,631,077 $ (2,371,781) $ 24,259,296
➢ Reductions in the Fire Station 1 project are the result of an overall downsizing of the facility
design from 20,195 sf to 14,867 sf.
Reductions in the Central Maintenance facility project are the result of a smaller wash bay,
smaller salt storage area, and a fabric span roof for salt storage. The fabric roof would save
$250,000, but would require the Council to approve a variance.
➢ Reductions in the Police/City Hall project are primarily due to downsizing the Police garage
facility.
➢ The City's Financial Advisor, Dave MacGillivray from Springsted, was at the December 9, 2014
City Council Workshop to present information about the financing options for the capital
improvement projects under consideration, as identified in the various space needs studies.
➢ At the meeting, Mr. MacGillivray shared with the City Council the dollar capacity the City would
have to take on additional debt without increasing the capital/debt service portion of the City's
property tax levy.
➢ Two capital/debt service levies are set to expire in the coming years:
o $1.1 million for the Community Center expires in 2020
o $1.2-$1.3 million per year for overpasses/exchanges expires in 2019.
➢ Variables that may influence how much of the three projects can be completed without
affecting the tax levy include:
o Bond interest rates. Currently, they are extremely low, but if rates rise, that will reduce
the amount the City can borrow without increasing taxes.
o Construction costs are currently running very high as there is shortage of labor and
materials due to high construction demand, such as the Vikings stadium and the North
Dakota oil boom.
o If the City is willing to reduce the exchanges/overpass levy by half, and extend the final
year of the levy from 2019 to 2022, that will add to the City's capacity to issue bonds.
o Keep in mind that all new capital projects typically have associated maintenance costs
that impact operating budgets in future years. The impact of these projects on future
operating budgets has not yet been estimated.
Agenda Information Memo
June 9, 2015 Eagan Special City Council Workshop
➢ Funding options that would reduce the bonding amount needed include:
o General Fund Balance - The Council has established a fund balance target range of 40-
45% of next year's budget. At the end of 2014, the City was $3.1 million over the 45%
target range, and $4.7 million over the 40% range.
o Water/Stormwater Renewal & Replacement cash (Utilities Fund) can be used for an
estimated $1.25 million of the Central Maintenance Facility project as certain portions
of the project are related to those functions.
➢ Minnesota Statutes 475.521 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BONDS provides municipalities an
opportunity to issue bonds for certain capital improvements for acquisition or betterment of
certain public buildings (each of the City projects under consideration would be allowed)
provided certain conditions and scheduling requirements are met. (A copy of the statute is
included as an attachment.)
➢ Mr. MacGillivray will be present at the meeting to discuss two financing scenarios—one with
utilization of excess General Fund balance to reduce the bond issue size, and one without. He
will also discuss a possible schedule and the requirements for assuring compliance with the
Minnesota Statutes 475.521.
FACTS regarding the Fire Administration building:
➢ The Fire Administration Building was constructed in 1998, with an addition in 1999.
➢ The building is two stories, with a total of 13,541 square feet.
➢ 50 parking stalls are located on the site.
➢ The property was listed for sale from August 1, 2013 through July 31, 2014 as the City retained
Cassidy Turley as the broker to assist with marketing. The property has not been marketed
actively since July 31, 2014.
➢ At the time, the property had a list price of $1,575,000. The City received one written offer
during this time period, well below the list price.
➢ The Fire Administration Building is scheduled for a roof replacement in 2016 at an estimated
cost $30,000.
➢ The City Hall/Police Station Space needs study completed in December, 2014 indicated that
approximately 8-15 Staff members could be relocated from the City Hall to the Fire
Administration building for operational purposes.
➢ City Hall expansion project costs might be reduced by $1,518,000 if certain City Staff operations
were relocated to the Fire Administration building.
➢ Remodeling and maintenance project costs to relocate staffing needs at the Fire Administration
building are projected at $443,000.
➢ The Space Study projects an additional $22,000 per year of operational and utility costs if certain
staffing operations were relocated from City Hall to the Fire Administration building. Over a 20 -
year period, that would total $440,000.
➢ In summary, the net savings from retaining Fire Administration building would be $635,000:
Project cost savings (1,518,000)
Relocation/remodel facility 443,000
20 years' add'I operations & util costs 440,000
Net savings from keeping Fire Admin (635,000)
Agenda Information Memo
June 9, 2015 Eagan Special City Council Workshop
➢ It follows, then, that if the City can sell the building for more than $635,000, from a purely
financial perspective, it makes sense to sell it. Other factors to consider in the decision to sell or
retain are:
o Relocating certain City Staff and their operations to the Fire Administration building and
retaining the Fire Administration building may also allow for the utilization of the second
floor multi -function meeting space for additional city and public functions.
o Additional storage space in the basement of the Fire Administration building would be
available if the Fire Administration building were retained.
o Relocating of certain City staff and their operations to the Fire Administration building
would likely result in operational inefficiencies with a split staff from City Hall
operations, compounded by the travel needed between sites.
o Proper supervision may be challenging with a split staff, should there be relocation to
the Fire Administration building.
o Customer service to the public may become challenging and more evident with a split
staff and operations at both City Hall and the Fire Administration building.
The City Council may wish to consider marketing the Fire Administration building for at least a
one-year period of time.
Attachments: (3)
IV. -1 Schedule
IV. -2 Minnesota State Statute 475.521
IV. -3 Springsted PowerPoint presentation
Possible Schedule for Phase One
Of City Facilities
Construction Projects
A.) June 9 City Council Workshop: Present construction and financing schedule for CMF
Phase #1 and New Fire Station. Discuss Fire Administration Building.
B.) June 16 City Council Meeting: Authorize the hiring of Oertel (Central Maintenance
Facility) and CNH (Fire Station) to serve as architect/engineer and authorize the
preparation of plans and specifications.
C.) July 7 City Council Meeting: City Council action scheduling a public hearing for its
meeting on Tuesday August 3, 2015 to receive public comment on the 5 Year Facilities
CIP.
D.) August 3 City Council Meeting: City Council conducts a public hearing to receive
public comment on the 5 Year Facilities CIP. City Council will also take action to
approve the CIP at the same meeting.
E.) September 8 City Council Workshop: City Council hears a report from CNH and
Oertel on both the Fire Station project and CMF Phase #1. Update on the project scope,
cost estimate, bidding climate and schedule. This information will be used to assist with
establishing the maximum bond amount to include in the Enabling Resolution
authorizing the sale of the bonds.
F.) September 15 City Council Meeting: City Council takes action scheduling a public
hearing for its regular meeting on October 20, 2015 to obtain public comment on the
intent to issues bonds.
G.) After September 15 City Council Meeting: Publish notice of October 20, 2015 Public
Hearing. "The notice must be published in the official newspaper of the municipality or
in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality. Additionally, the notice may be
posted on the official Web site, if any, of the municipality. The notice must be published
at least 14 days but not more than 28 days before the date of the hearing.
H.) October 20 City Council Meeting: City Council conducts a public hearing to obtain
comment on the intent to issue bonds.
I.) After October 20 City Council Meeting: The clock starts awaiting the possible
submittal of a petition requiring a referendum; "if a petition requesting a vote on the
issuance is signed by voters equal to five percent of the votes cast in the municipality in
the last municipal general election and is filed with the clerk within 30 days after the
public hearing." The target figure for Eagan would be a petition with about 1,300
signatures. Thirty days later would essentially be Friday November 20, 2015.
J.) December 15, 2015 City Council Meeting:
a.) Approval of the Resolution authorizing sale of bonds.
a.) Approval of plans and specifications for both the CMF Phase #2 and Fire Station
projects.
K.) February 10, 2016 Construction Sid Opening Date
L.) February 17, 2016 City Council Meeting: Award Construction Contracts for Central
Maintenance Phase #1 and Fire Station Projects
M.)Mid-March: Construction Starts
N.) April 7, 2016 City Council Meeting: City Council takes action awarding the sale of the
Bonds. (Bid opening of the bond sale/Negotiated Sale schedule will need to be
establishing, backing up from this date as the target for the action awarding the sale of the
bonds. Not certain of all steps needed, but this will be the date of award by the City
Council, thus we will plan accordingly.
MINNESOTA STATUTES 2014 475.521
475.521 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BONDS.
Subdivision 1. Definitions. For purposes of this section, the following terms have the meanings given.
(a) "Bonds" mean an obligation defined tinder section 475.51.
(b) "Capital improvement" means acquisition or betterment of public lands, buildings or other im-
provements for the purpose of a city hall, town hall, library, public safety facility, and public works facility.
An improvement must have an expected useful life of five years or more to qualify. Capital improvement
does not include light rail transit or any activity related to it, or a park, road, bridge, administrative building
other than a city or town hall, or land for any of those facilities. For purposes of this section, "capital im-
provement" includes expenditures for purposes described in this paragraph that have been incurred by a mu-
nicipality before approval of a capital improvement plan, if such expenditures are included in a capital im-
provement plan approved on or before the date of the public hearing under subdivision 2 regarding issuance
of bonds for such expenditures.
(c) "Municipality" means a home rule charter or statutory city or a town described in section 368,0 1,
subdivision 1 or 1a.
Subd. 2. Election requirement. (a) Bonds issued by a municipality to finance capital improvements
under an approved capital improvements plan are not subject to the election requirements of section 475.58.
The bonds must be approved by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the members of a five -member
governing body. In the case of a governing body having more or less than five members, the bonds must be
approved by a vote of at least two-thirds of the members of the governing body.
(b) Before the issuance of bonds qualifying under this section, the municipality must publish a notice
of its intention to issue the bonds and the date and time of the hearing to obtain public comment on the
matter. The notice must be published in the official newspaper of the municipality or in a newspaper of
general circulation in the municipality. Additionally, the notice may be posted on the official Web site, if
any, of the municipality. The notice must be published at least 14 but not more than 28 days before the
date of the hearing.
(c) A municipality may issue the bonds only after obtaining the approval of a majority of the voters
voting on the question of issuing the obligations, if a petition requesting a vote on the issuance is signed
by voters equal to five percent of the votes cast in the municipality in the last municipal general election
and is filed with the cleric within 30 days after the public hearing. If the municipality elects not to submit
the question to the voters, the municipality shall not propose the issuance of bonds under this section for
the same purpose and in the same amount for a period of 365 days from the date of receipt of the petition.
If the question of issuing the bonds is submitted and not approved by the voters, the provisions of section
475.58, subdivision 1a, shall apply.
Subd. 3. Capital improvement plan. (a) A municipality may adopt a capital improvement plan. The
plan must cover at least a five-year period beginning with the date of its adoption. The plan must set forth the
estimated schedule, timing, and details of specific capital improvements by year, together with the estimated
cost, the need for the improvement, and sources of revenue to pay for the improvement. In preparing the
capital improvement plan, the governing body must consider for each project and for the overall plan,
(1) the condition of the municipality's existing infrastructure, including the projected need for repair
or replacement;
Copyright 0 2014 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota, All Rights Reserved.
475.521 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2014 2
(2) the likely demand for the improvement;
(3) the estimated cost of the improvement;
(4) the available public resources;
(5) the level of overlapping debt in the municipality;
(6) the relative benefits and costs of alternative uses of the funds;
(7) operating costs of the proposed improvements; and
(8) alternatives for providing services most efficiently through shared facilities with other municipalities
or local government units.
(b) The capital improvement plan and annual amendments to it must be approved by the governing
body after public hearing.
Subd. 4. Limitations on amount. A municipality may not issue bonds under this section if the maximum
amount of principal and interest to become due in any year on all the outstanding bonds issued under this
section, including the bonds to be issued, will equal or exceed 0,16 percent of the estimated market value
of property in the municipality. Calculation of the limit must be made using the estimated market value for
the taxes payable year in which the obligations are issued and sold. In the case of a municipality with a
population of 2,500 or more, the bonds are subject to the net debt limits under section 475.53. In the case of
a shared facility in which more than one municipality participates, upon compliance by each participating
municipality with the requirements of subdivision 2, the limitations in this subdivision and the net debt
represented by the bonds shall be allocated to each participating municipality in proportion to its required
financial contribution to the financing of the shared facility, as set forth in the joint powers agreement
relating to the shared facility. This section does not limit the authority to issue bonds under any other special
or general law.
Subd. 5. Application of this chapter, Bonds to finance capital improvements qualifying under this
section must be issued under the issuance authority in this chapter and the provisions of this chapter apply,
except as otherwise specifically provided in this section.
History; 2003 c 127 art 12 s 16; 1Sp2003 c 21 art 10 s I1; 2005 c 152 art I s 27-30; 2013 c 143 art
12 s 15,16; art. 14 s 99
Copyright 0 2014 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Miunesota. All Rights Reserved.
�'
x �..
,k,�
C—
m
CD
m
NO
C)
m
%.
cn
..0
C:
rs-
n
cn
CD
n
rM•
0
"S
cl
0
"1
N)
Cl
r
E
RE
0Q,
tO
GSA a
eD
C�
0=16
0
ua
fA
0=16
0
ua
CT
n�
CD
C'7
0
® ■
CD
CD
� J
CD
C6
® ■
U)
■
CD
\ V'
'.�
cn
CD
CD
CZ-
CDL
®
®
® ■
CLCD
-n
CDLC�
cn
■
CD
® .
C®
MCD
o
cp
®
CD
U)
i'
_
q
CD
v
cr
®
CD
C®
6 ,
CD
P �
CD
® ®
cn
�..
■AoftL
■®
N
CDCD
cn
0
'.
(/gyp]
C®
CD
cn
I
k-41
��-y�
-u
C)
CIO
(D
0
0
CD
C
cn
-o
3
o
90
0
CD
cn
N
0)
C/)
<
0)
CD
C)
r
CD
=3
:3
r-
0
cn
3
CD
0
CD
CM
Cn
cr
0-
0
CD
CD
=5
<
CD
CD
w
cn
cr
CD
<
0
CD
CD
I
CD
CD
a
CD
c
0-
n'
cn
CD
r�
a
9
OL
a
0
L!
i
r
r
•
•
r.
e:
it
L!
C
n
cn
(D
®
•
0
C1
D
®
�
CD
e
W
c i
U)
U
NO
N)
W00®
o
I
®
c■
■
c 1�
i
C:
c�-
n
n
0
0-
U)
0
olo
ccs
P- t
ONe.
P- t
Agenda Information Memo
June, 9, 2015 Eagan Special City Council Workshop
V. 2016 Budget Process Update
Actions To Be Considered:
No action required. This is an informal check-in on the 2016 budget process.
Facts:
➢ On April 30, staff officially kicked off the 2016 budget process. Department directors submitted
budget proposals for General Fund departments, Public Utilities and Recreation facilities on
June 1.
➢ The Budget Team—City Administrator Osberg, Finance Director Pepper, Assistant Finance
Director Feldman, Finance Intern Kasha Lundell—will meet with directors in the next week to
review and discuss individual department budgets. Assistant City Administrator Miller is also a
Budget Team member and will be involved in the process upon her return.
➢ The Administrator's recommended budget is scheduled to be presented to the Council for
formal and detailed review at the August 11 workshop.
➢ Unless they had specific new projects or programs that aligned directly with the Council's
stated priorities, directors were instructed to submit the non -personnel portions of their
budgets at the same dollar level as 2015.
This agenda item offers the Council an opportunity to provide additional direction or input that
would assist the Administrator in preparing a recommended budget.
Attachments: (0)