2016-02-17 Council Special Mtg agenda
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
Wednesday, February 17, 2016 – 4:00 p.m.
Mendota Heights City Hall
1. Call to Order/Roll Call
2. Personnel Issue—Authorize Assignment of Light Duty
3. Review of Report on Engineering Department Staffing and Funding
Options
4. Adjournment
City Engineering Division Review
1
City of Mendota Heights
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Craig L. Ebeling
General Local Go�ernment Consulting
Email — crai�4958(c��mail.cam
Web — http://crai�4958.wix.com/crai�-ebelin�
Telephone — 952-356-6812
Fax — 052-894-3338
Table of Contents
I Introduction
II Background
Page
�
A. Engineering Division History 3
B. Organizational Chart / Structure 3
C. Work Tasks for Which the Division is Responsible 4
D. Council's Infrastructure Stewardship Role 4
E. Funding Model for the Engineering Division 5
III Options and Discussion
A. Staff Composition
B. Division Funding Challenges
C. Performance Monitoring Systems
D. Communications
IV Recommendations
Exhibits
Exhibit A Organizational Chart
Exhibit B City Engineering Division Work Tasks
Exhibit C Asset Management List — December 13, 2015
Exhibit D Capital Improvements Plan
Exhibit E Engineering Fund Revenue and Expenditures Summary
2
7
8
9
10
11
Introduction
In its ongoing search for the optimal staff organizational model, the City of Mendota Heights
(hereinafter referred to as the City) is presently considering the Engineering Division. This most recent
effort has been prompted by the departure of the Project Engineer. In a small work team like the
Engineering Division an event like this presents an opportunity to not only think about possibly
redefining the position prior to filling it but also to give consideration to the entire work group and its
role within the City. This is altogether appropriate but does not necessarily imply that the present
structure is flawed. Towards that end the Council has authorized Craig L. Ebeling, General Local
Government Consulting to review the overall function of the Division and specifically to discuss the
staffing structure. This report is submitted pursuant to that authorization.
II Background
This section recites information that the Council may already be familiar with. Since the report may
have a wider audience that is not as familiar as the Council, this is not inappropriate. Moreover the
intention is to include data to provide a common information base from which discussions can evolve
and in the case of new information, to foster closer communication between the Engineering Division
and the Council.
A. En�ineerin� Division History
The City of Mendota Heights has a unique history as to how it has handled the city engineering function.
From its incorporation in 1956 until the early 1980's the work was facilitated through the usage of a
consulting engineering company. In 1981 as the consulting engineering company prepared to close, the
City acquired the firm and converted the consultant's four employees to City employees. During the
heavy development period of the late 1980's and 1990's additional employees were added for a total
complement of 5.5 full-time-equivalencies (FTE's). In 2010 upon retirement of one of the Engineering
Division employees, a minor restructuring was implemented combining this position (which was
primarily focused on parks and facilities work) with a custodial position to create the Facilities Manager
position thus reducing the head count in Engineering to 4.5 FTE's where it has remained up to this
point.
B. Or�anizational Chart / Structure
The Division presently has an authorized staffing level of 4.5 FTE's. The City Engineer / Director of Public
Works (CE-DPW) has one direct-report from this work group in addition to direct-reports from Public
Works Operations, Protective Inspections (Building Inspections) and an administrative assistant. (See
Exhibit A) The Facilities Management function has recently been shifted from the City Engineer to report
to City Administration. This was a reflection of the shifted work load relating to a vacant position in the
Engineering Division. The CE-DPW reports to the City Administrator. A significant majority of cities in
Minnesota, especially the smaller cities, include public works operations in the areas supervised by the
CE-DPW. The reasoning typically cited for this arrangement is that the CE-DPW needs to have sensitivity
3
to operations and maintenance concerns as they facilitate construction and reconstruction of the
infrastructure. Any capital project will have impacts to the overall systems. Operability considerations
must be built into the design standards that are utilized. The thought is that if an individual is
responsible for operating a facility, they will make certain that operability and ease of maintenance is
considered in the design of the facility. There are other variations among cities as to where engineering
fits into the organizational chart. There are models that include planning as well as protective inspection
in the same work group as engineering.
The authorized positions in the Division are as follows:
City Engineer/ Director of Public Works 1.0 FTE
Assistant City Engineer
Project Engineer
1.0 FTE
1.0 FTE
Senior Engineering Technician 1.0 FTE
Administrative Support 0.5 FTE
C. Work Tasks for Which the Division is Responsible
While the City does not have the breadth of public works involvement that some larger and non-
suburban cities have (for example water treatment, wastewater treatment, airports, landfills etc.) the
Engineering Division oversees a work scope that is very similar to suburban communities in the Twin
Cities and throughout the United States. The exception to this is that drinking water supply, distribution
and storage is handled by agreement with the City of St. Paul. Exhibit B lists the major tasks for which
the Division is responsible. When most people think about "the City Engineer" they often focus on the
tasks that are listed under the capital project implementation portion of the Exhibit. Indeed this is a
major focus for the Division. The Council also has a major role in the processes necessary for capital
projects implementation (review of feasibility reports, project hearings, special assessments etc.) and is
most familiar with this task. But the list demonstrates that there are many more tasks that must be
completed in the City that are not nearly as visible but are nevertheless critical to the ongoing
operations of public works systems and the preservation and stewardship of the City's public works
assets. Other Exhibit B items concern properly protecting the infrastructure when it is impacted by
others — Development Review, Coordination with other Infrastructure Agencies, Right-of-Way
Management and Permitting etc. The Division also handles some other nontraditional-public-works
activities like Protective Inspection, Airport Relations Commission etc.
D. Council's Infrastructure Stewardship Role
A realization is occurring across the US that the nation's public infrastructure is in dire need of attention.
So much focus is given as to how we can construct society's necessary infrastructure that we oftentimes
forget that we need to faithfully take care of those facilities once they are built. That responsibility is
reflected in several of the items on Exhibit B. Clearly once a public facility is constructed it must be
4
properly operated — thus the items on Public Works Operations Supervision. The CE-DPW is integrally
involved in the operational aspects of the systems. But beyond this the Engineering Division must be
concerned about the long-term viability of the systems. Thus the Infrastructure Management, Capital
Improvements Planning, Policy Development and Comprehensive Planning tasks have to be thoughtfully
handled so that when rehabilitation or reconstruction is necessary the Council has the appropriate
information and tools at its disposal to meet its responsibilities.
The Council bears a heavy burden acting as the public "stewards" of these systems that have been built
by the citizens. The scope of these systems can easily be lost in the day-to-day work that the Council
faces each week. Exhibit C estimates the replacement value of the City's infrastructure systems. The size
of that total is a sobering reminder of the magnitude of the investment that has been made. Knowing
just how many resources need to be brought to bear to meet this stewardship responsibility requires
that the Council have accurate information and well-thought out plans. Supplying that information that
the Council must have requires up-to-date and accurate records of what is on and under the ground.
Cities across the US are now coming to grips with the cost of inaccurate and or incomplete records and
poorly thought out long term plans. The Council must be able to demonstrate to its taxpayers that there
is a valid need for these expenditures. The Engineering Division is responsible for making certain that the
Council has the necessary information so they can do that with confidence.
A word about record keeping might be warranted here. Because infrastructure construction and
reconstruction have become so costly and taxpayers are burdened with so many other demands,
making the right decision as to how and when construction and reconstruction occurs is absolutely
critical. Record keeping and infrastructure planning techniques have evolved to help in making these
decisions. Greater usage of specific computer applications for monitoring infrastructure condition and
predicting aging patterns as well as the usage of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and asset
management systems has become the expected norm. The City has acquired the necessary tools for this
work, but the Division struggles to find the time and resources to properly use the systems that the City
has.
E. Fundin� Model for the En�ineerin� Division
The City uses a funding scheme for the Division that has commonalities with many departments in the
area and throughout the country. It is the "enterprise" concept in which the costs to run the Division are
actually collected from other sources within the City. The Engineering "enterprise" is thought of as
"paying its own way". Thus its costs won't be readily recognized as a budget item requiring dollars from
the general ad valorem levy. (Strictly speaking because of public auditing requirements the City actually
runs the Division as an "internal service fund" but the general concept is the same.) This approach
involves the following processes:
• Charges for services relating to "external" work — for example bonded Capital Projects - are
made for each hour worked by Division personnel at rates established by a"multiplier".
Multipliers are used widely in personal services businesses. In the consulting engineering
industry companies are often times very guarded as to what multipliers they use. The company
5
might use different multipliers for different kinds of projects or different clients. The industry
norm is approximately 2.5 to 3.25. For external work the Division uses a multiplier of 2.50. Thus
an employee whose base salary is $20.00 per hour will be charged at $50.00 per hour to the
project. In the case of a bonded capital project the mechanics will include a transfer from the
project construction fund to the Internal Service Fund for the Engineering Division charges.
(Bond proceeds are used to create the construction fund. When the project is completed the
construction fund is closed and the bond fund then exists until all debt is paid at the end of the
bond period.) Of course bond funds are public funds and are ultimately paid by the tax payers
and the payers of special assessments — so in most cases the charges are not strictly "external"
in the sense that a non-citizen is paying them. Nevertheless the net effect of this approach is to
pay a significant portion of the Division's costs with bond funds. (See Exhibit E) These costs then
are not reflected in the General Levy but instead in the Debt Levy. There are levy limitation
effects that come into play here as well but they do not change the basic concept.
• Charges for services relating to "internal" work — for example work for the Parks Department or
the Planning Department, are made for each hour worked by Division personnel increased by a
multiplier of 1.75. So the theoretical $20.00 per hour employee discussed above would be
charged out at $35.00 for each hour worked. The budgets of these various internal functions
then reflect transfers from their budget to the Internal Service Fund.
The logical question follows: Does the Engineering Division "pay its way"? Historically there have been
mixed results. Up until 2010 there had been several years in succession where revenues had not covered
expenses. So funding for the Division has been a concern in the past. To address this concern the
Council determined to provide funding for the CE-DPW from "retainers " included in other activity
budgets — Planning, Admin, Code Enforcement, Roads and Bridges and Parks from the General Fund as
well as the Sanitary Sewer Fund and the Storm Sewer Utility Fund, to supplement the hourly charges by
Division personnel. The use of retainers is a long-standing practice in the City. More recently the results
have been more positive but 2014 was a year in which there was an underrun. This was due at least in
part to the cost for using a consultant necessitated by a Division staff vacancy. The following table
utilizes data from the recent Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFR) for the City. The data for
2015 is not yet available. Exhibits E provided from Finance shows a little more detail. (There were some
very minor number adjustments made in audit.)
Engineering Division Revenue and Expenses History
Fiscal Operating Operating Operating Allocated
Year Revenue Expenses - Expenses Net Operating Interest Unappropriated Change In
Chargesfor
Services Wages & Benefits Other * Revenue Income Fund Transfer Net Position
2012 $ 676,054 $ 492,625 $ 80,009 $ 103,420 $ 10,000 $ 8,200 $ 105,220
2013 $ 608,428 $ 491,881 $ 84,943 $ 31,604 $ 10,000 $ 8,200 $ 33,404
2014 $ 570,251 $ 503,622 $ 86,529 $ (19,900) $ 10,000 $ 8,200 $ (18,100)
* Materials & Supplies, Professional Services, Insurance, Utilities, Depreciation, Travel and Miscellaneous
�'
III Options and Discussion
A. Staff Composition
At present the CE-DPW, Assistant City Engineer, and Project Engineer are all licensed, registered
professional engineers. This make-up is very atvpical. A more likely complement would be to have one
or two registered engineers with the balance of the staff non-licensed professionals and or engineering
technicians. For purposes of administrating the state Municipal State Aid Street System (MSAS) the City
is required to have a minimum of one licensed engineer. The CE-DPW is the designated city engineer for
MSAS purposes. That person is charged with the responsibility of administrating the City's MSAS
allocation — planning and programming its uses, reporting on how the dollars are spent, reporting on
changes to the City street system and other tasks. In the City's case, the CE-DPW handles these tasks
and many other high-level work tasks relating to infrastructure management, inter-departmental
relations and interagency relations. That time commitment does not allow him to be deeply engaged in
the direct, detailed preparation of plans for the capital projects.
State law requires that infrastructure work designed for the public be prepared by and under the direct
supervision of a licensed engineer. This design responsibility is handled by the Assistant City Engineer.
Even though the City may have other licensed engineers on staff, if they are not "in direct responsible
charge" of the design work, following state law they may not sign the plans. So there appears to be
some justification for a second licensed engineer. This arrangement is pretty common among suburbs
with in-house engineering departments. Beyond these requirements there does NOT seem to be a
justification for a third registered engineer in the department. In discussing this issue with the CE-DPW
he concurred with that conclusion. However he noted that the job description for the Project Engineer
position does not REQUIRE a license and the pay scale does not reflect a level of compensation typically
associated with a licensed engineer. He went on to say that filling this position has been problematic
over the years and the City has been forced to implement some flexibility in the existing job description
allowing it to be filled by either licensed or non-licensed engineers. The engineers with degrees tend to
want to progress to licensure and then because of the pay limitations for this position, to seek
advancements in other places. Unfortunately non-degreed engineering technicians with the technical
know-how to do this job often attract a salary equal to or beyond those paid to the younger degreed
engineers. With the advent of more and more sophisticated design and drafting software, the
responsibility and pay-level lines between degreed engineers and highly qualified, experienced non-
degreed engineering technicians is blurring.
In terms of the overall head-count of the department, if the City intends to continue "in-house"
implementation of capital projects, this is really not possible with less than three people apart from the
CE-DPW. Indeed this requires three flexible people who are willing and able to design and administrate
projects during non-construction periods and to survey, inspect and handle construction administration
during construction periods. The City could consider discontinuing the present in-house approach
opting instead to implement capital projects with consulting engineers. It is important to remember
7
however that this will not eliminate all of the non-capital-projects tasks shown in Exhibit B. Those tasks
will still need to be done and if there are no in-house personnel, consultants will need to handle those as
well. My general thought on the in-house-versus-consultant decision is this: If there is year-in-and-year-
out capital project implementation work in a city that can be handled by an in-house staff that can also
address non-capital project Implementation projects, it is more cost effective to maintain that in-house
staff. However, when that status no longer exists it may likely be more cost effective to utilize
consultants. Again it must be remembered that because of the non-capital-projects work there will
always be a need for SOME in-house engineering personnel. Exhibit D lists the planned capital projects
for the future years as presently foreseen by the City. Based on that data it appears at this time there is
adequate work to justify a staff that can implement capital projects.
B. Division Fundin� Challen�es
Following this approach as noted above, the general levy for the City does not include a specific
allocation for the Engineering Division. And it especially does not clearly delineate how the non-capital
project work that the Division accomplishes is being paid for. Those activities are actually mostly paid for
by the "mark-up" generated by the multiplier — the increment between actual base salaries and fringes,
and the actual amount charged. This may not be totally inappropriate in that a nexus can be made
between many of the non-capital project work tasks and capital projects. Still when comparing the work
done by the Division compared to what that work would cost using an outside consultant it is important
to remember that the consultant would ONLY implement the capital projects. For their multiplier-
derived costs they would NOT handle all of the other non-capital-project work costs.
Challenges can arise with this system.
• Capital projects implementation necessarily takes priority over less critical but still very
important work tasks. Those work tasks are then pushed aside and accumulate to the possible
long term detriment of the City infrastructure system. Symptoms of this problem are showing in
the City. The CE-DPW reports that there is a backlog of as-built information waiting to be
entered into the asset management systems and GIS records. At existing staffing levels
attention to this important work is difficult to achieve because of the necessary prioritization of
the capital projects. And while the asset management tools that the City has are very good,
they are only as good as the data that is in them and the thoughtful usage of them by
Engineering Division personnel. Clearly with tight City budgets and the existing funding stream
expanding the staff is not feasible beyond its current authorized level of 4.5 FTE's.
• The second concern may relate to the first. Inasmuch as the funding for the Engineering Division
comes from capital projects, questions can arise as to whether capital projects are truly needed
or are they being implemented because revenue to run the Engineering Division is needed. In
the Council interviews this concern was voiced several times. This arrangement can have a
subtle influence on decision making by the staff and the Council. Or stated in other words —
Does the Council have confidence that the City's short term and lon� term capital
improvements plans are ri�ht? Once that confidence level is achieved the decisions relating to
the Division's structure and possible usage of consultants become more clear. Having well
:
thought-out infrastructure plans is critical for the Council in responding to their constituents
concern on taxation and special assessments. Of course the keys to having good long term
planning is the infrastructure planning documents and up-to-date and accurate records
mentioned above. If the Engineering Division is not able to accomplish these tasks to the
Council's satisfaction, because of a lack of time, equipment, expertise or performance there will
be difficulties and uncertainty for everyone.
C. Performance Monitorin� Systems
This may be the point at which to have a conversation regarding performance. During interviews,
Councilors recalled situations where they perceived that errors were made by Division personnel. There
was also a sense that these situations were not fully enough reviewed with the Council. There were also
concerns regarding which funds were used to pay for the necessary construction revisions. Three
examples were cited:
• The Mendota Plaza Sanitary Sewer Relocation — Finance advises that the costs related to the
potential main line sewer relocation issue were paid from the sanitary sewer utility fund. This
situation involved a dispute over what was required in a development agreement. The ultimate
payment reimbursed the developer for re-design necessary to AVOID the need to relocate the
sanitary sewer. There was also litigation relating to a sanitary sewer service line for the White
Pines building. This was processed as other litigation and in the end there was a settlement that
was paid from General Fund Reserves.
• The Trunk Highway 13 Trail Project Water Main Relocation - Finance advises that the costs for
this work were paid from the water and storm water utility funds.
• The Victoria and Douglas Intersection - This issue arose on a consultant-designed project where
a utility feature not anticipated during design and difficulties in getting it relocated caused a
need for redesign and in the end reconstruction. Inasmuch as the rework was completed prior
to closing of the construction fund and project finalization the work was paid for as a part of the
project, with bond funds.
In any event none of the costs were paid from the Engineering Internal Service Fund. Would that have
been appropriate if the fund could have afforded it? Engineers pride themselves on being thorough and
anticipating all eventualities. Nevertheless unanticipated field conditions are sometimes encountered
and - sometimes as humans do, they make errors. Governments, especially local governments, have
problems in handling human error. Elected representatives and staff inembers feel that the tax payers
deserve the very best and they usually receive that, to the best of the employees' abilities. But when a
situation occurs in which they don't get error-free work the natural reaction is that those who are to
blame must pay. Unfortunately this places an impossible performance expectation on public servants.
Despite everyone's best intentions errors occur. This is true when work is done by staff employees or by
contractors/consultants. Indeed it is entirely probable that had these situations occurred on a
consultant-designed project that funding for the "fixes" would have been the same. Nearly all consultant
agreements limit the exposure for the consultants for all but the most egregious errors.
It is beyond the scope of this review to ascertain what if any errors were made in these situations or
others. The bigger issue here is employee performance monitoring. Are there repeated difficulties that
have no reasonable explanations? If there is a pattern of errors or performance short-comings by ANY
employee that performance issue must be dealt with. It appears that at least some of the Councilors are
unfamiliar with the performance review processes of the City and/or they do not have confidence in
them. It is easier said than done but, performance issues should be considered separately from
discussions regarding organizational structure.
The City has had a city-wide performance evaluation system since 2011. The Police Department had
implemented a system for their people prior to that. The Assistant to the City Administrator / HR
Coordinator worked with the Management Team to create a performance review system to be utilized
city-wide. A self-appraisal form for employees was included. A"Guide to Conducting Performance
Appraisals" is provided to all department heads and supervisors. The HR Coordinator sends initial
reminders to the supervisors four to six weeks from the due date for the reviews asking them to
schedule their employee's performance review and then follows up with several reminders to make
certain that the reviews are done. The final review of the appraisals is done by the City Administrator.
D. Communications
In the interviews conducted for this review there were mixed reports as to whether there was an
adequate flow of information between the Council and the Division. Communication nearly always can
be improved. Good transfer of necessary information is critical for Council decisions. While written
communications are an important part of this mechanism, there may be times when Council Members
may need to pose questions. Multiple contact points between staff and elected representatives are
oftentimes necessary but if incorrectly handled can create issues. For very good reasons many cities
have internal policies addressing communications between elected officials and non-Chief
Administrative Officers (CAO's). The genesis of these policies typically is founded on valid concerns that:
• Staff personnel may feel pressured by elected representatives to undertake certain actions or to
advocate policy positions that they may not, absent that perceived pressure. This may well not
be the intent of the elected representatives but despite everyone's good intentions subtle
pressures can be created.
• Elected representatives will differ in terms of the amount of time that may be available to them
for discussions with staff people. This can create a situation where one representative may have
more information on a given subject than another representative thus making their advocacy for
their policy position at the Council level more effective
• Elected representatives may take too much of a staff person's time and thus divert them from
their duties.
• Staff people may receive differing inputs from elected representatives inducing them to be
uncertain as to if they are really receiving direction and if so what to do with conflicting
direction
1Q
IV Recommendations
Of the questions that have arisen at this evaluation time perhaps the most central and critical are these
(they are all related to each other): Is the City doing too many or too few infrastructure projects? Are
we doing them for the right reasons? What can we afford? How should the engineering task relating to
capital projects be handled? It is essential that there be shared and agreed-upon plans for infrastructure
capital projects. It appears that the Council does NOT have the high-level of confidence in the plans that
it needs to justify expenditures to its citizens. Until there is a consensus about what capital projects the
City has to do, sound decisions about the structure of the Engineering Division can't be made. Based on
this line of reasoning the following recommendations are offered for consideration:
A. Hold the vacancy in the Division open pending consensus on the following items.
B. Implement a moratorium on capital projects until there ARE agreed upon short term and
long term capital improvements plans in which the Councilors have confidence. Take the
time to test existing plans with the Council. Is there confidence in the plans? Can the
Councilors defend them to each other and their constituents? This moratorium could be
effective immediately forestalling the 2016 program which is in progress or it could be
made effective for projects after the 2016 program. An effective-immediately moratorium
would have implications for the 2016 program which is now ready for final MSAS
approvals and bid solicitation.
C. Rework the capital improvements plans if necessary. Utilize the Division to do this review.
Bring infrastructure records up to date. This may require the one-time usaqe of contractors
to digitize existing records and to otherwise assist Division personnel. Investigate the
usage of the Dakota County GIS Technician Sharing program to assist in bringing the GIS
records of the City up to date.
D. Utilize an outside consultant if the Council feels an independent review of capital
improvement plans is necessary. Use the Division employees to provide data and to
participate in the process in order to keep the costs down. Regardless of whether the
review is done by the Division or by an independent consultant, this may be the time to
also consider City design standards and special assessment policies inasmuch as these
parameters have an impact on the plans.
E. If there are changes to the capital improvements plan / long term infrastructure
replacement plans, ask the City's long term financial advisors to incorporate these changes
in their models and to explain the implications to the Council.
F. If the adopted long term capital planning documents indicate an annual program of the
order of magnitude of $1,500,000 to $2,000,000 maintain the existing Engineering Division
structure. Further:
1. If capital projects will be implemented in 2016, move to quickly to fill the vacant
position with the clear understanding that the applicants need not be degreed and or
registered engineers. Indeed if possible, some preference may be considered in the
process to hire a non-degreed professional in the hopes that there will be less incentive
for the successful candidate to see the job as a stepping stone.
11
2. Update / modify the job description for the vacant position to best equip the division
to accomplish its capital project role AND the other work that the Division needs to
accomplish. The job description should place a higher emphasis on GIS implementation
although it may not be and probably won't be a full-time GIS position. Bear in mind
that the long-term solution for this need and the ongoing data generation necessary
for the infrastructure management software packages may involve the periodic usage
of consultants or temporary employees. The successful candidate would be the
coordinator for this work. As noted above the City may also want to consider entering
into an agreement with Dakota County for the services they offer.
3. Increase the Division's multipliers —As noted above the City's external multipliers are
on the low end of the scale compared to private industry. An increase to even a
modest level of 2.75 for external projects would generate $35,000 to $40,000 per year
to stabilize the Internal Service Fund and to make the periodic usage of consultants for
GIS and infrastructure management tasks more feasible.
4. Expand the retainer allowance in the Public Works Operational budgets to better
allow costs for non-capital projects tasks to be recouped.
G. If the adopted long term capital planning document indicates that that there is NOT an
ongoing program of capital projects each year utilize consultants to meet the needs to
implement the larger projects.
1. Eliminate the presently vacant position. Reduce the staffing level to 3.5 FTE's.
2. Focus the Division on its role in GIS and other asset record work, infrastructure
planning, consultant contract administration, support of other departments and other
non-capital-project work.
3. Continue to utilize the Division to implement contracted maintenance contracts and
the support of other City departments.
4. Utilize the Division to implement smaller infrastructure capital projects.
5. Reevaluate staffing levels in two years.
H. Continue with the present employee performance review system and encourage staff to
prioritize it.
1. Discuss Council policies on Councilor interactions with staff other than the City
Administrator to facilitate better transfer of information while avoiding the pitfalls noted
above. Consider the following principles:
1. Advising the City Administrator when Councilor contacts are made with staff.
2. Limiting the number of contacts.
3. Requiring that any request for information involving more than a certain number of
hours can only be made by direction of the City Administrator and/or the corporate
action of the Council.
4. Requiring that any meaningful information given to one Council person be given to all.
12
Exhibits
Exhibit A Organizational Chart
Exhibit B City Engineering Division Work Tasks
Exhibit C Asset Management List — December 15, 2015
Exhibit D Capital Improvements Plan
Exhibit E Engineering Fund Revenue and Expenditures Summary
�3
(^�' L^'
W W
� �
� �
�U �
(0 (0
L.L �
� �
C �
L �L .�
O � .0
�C � C
� .c �
� ��
c �
W
U �
� �
c
�o '�
� �
W
U
.�
(Q
L
U
N
�
C
N �
�_+ Q
�-_� �
� N
N
J
N
U ^
C
N
C �
� L
� '�^�
•� VJ
C
m
U �
c c�
0
�o �ca
� �
�
c �
�c(p Y
G �
N
U ^
C
N
C �
� L
� '�^�
•� VJ
C
City of Mendota Heights
City Engineering Division Work Tasks
1. Capital Project Implementation
a. Feasibility Studies
b. Public Engagement
c. Preliminary and Construction Surveying Services Procurement
d. Permanent and Temporary Right-of-Way Acquisition
e. Preliminary and Final Design
f. Bid Procurement
g. Field Inspection
h. Contract Administration
i. As-Built Record Preparation
2. Public Works Operations Supervision
a. Fleet Management
b. Streets, Storm Drainage and Sanitary Sewer Operations Planning
c. Streets, Storm Drainage and Sanitary Sewer Operational Budgeting
d. Contracted Construction-Related Maintenance Procurement
e. Field Locations —"Gopher State One Call" Response
f. Acquisition of Regulatory Agency Permits
3. City Hall and Other Public Building Facilities Management
4. Protective Inspection — Supervision of Building Official and Permitting Processes
5. Coordination with Planning
a. Development Review
b. Comprehensive Planning
c. Development Project Inspection
6. Coordination with Parks
a. Trail Construction and Contracted Maintenance Implementation
b. Park Building Construction and Contracted Maintenance Implementation
7. Coordination with Other Infrastructure Agencies including MnDOT, Dakota County, Met Council
Environmental Services, the City of St. Paul, etc.
8. Administration of the Municipal State Aid Street System Program
9. Infrastructure Asset Management
10. Capital Improvements Planning
11. Mapping — Geographic Information Systems
12. Asset Inventory and As-Built Records Maintenance
13. Policy Development
a. Special Assessment Policies
b. Infrastructure Design Standards
14. Right-of-Way Management and Permitting
15. Public Works Codes Enforcement
16. Sanitary Sewer, Water and Storm Water Rate Studies / User Charge Systems
17. Administration of the Airport Relations Commission
18. Interaction with Other City Departments, Administration and the City Council
Infrastructure
Streets
Bituminous Trails
Sanitary Sewer Main
Sanitary Sewer Lift Stations
Sanitary Sewer Force Main
Storm Sewer Main
Storm Treatment Ponds
Storm Sewer Lift Station
Lakes
Drainage Creeks
City Facilities (PW, City Hall, FD)
Fleet (PD, PW, City Hall, FD)
Fleet List*
CH - Explorer
CH - Pick-Up Truck
Dump/Plow Truck
3/4 - Full Ton Pick-Up Truck
Utility Truck
Fuel Trailers
Utility Trailers
Front End Loader
Back-Hoe
Cushman/Kabota Utility Vehciles
John Deere Utility Vehicle
X-Mark Mowers
Bobcat
Air Compressor
Roller
Brush Chipper
Generator
Sweeper
*Does not include FD or PD vehicles
Facilities List
City Hall
Fire Dept
Public Works
City of Mendota Heights
Asset Management List
December 2015
72
26
86
5
4.5
107
1
3
3
3
Varies
1
3
4
8
1
2
2
1
1
2
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Miles
Miles
Miles
Each
Miles
Miles
Each
Each
Each
Each
Each
Each
Each
Each
Each
Each
Each
Each
Each
Each
Each
Each
Each
Each
Total Asset Value $ 319.61 Million
$1.2M/mile
$78K/mile
$1.7M/mile
$200K/each
$200/foot
$400K/mile
$200K/each
NA
NA
45.00
60.00
200.00
60.00
120.00
30.00
12.50
300.00
180.00
80.00
20.00
18.00
175.00
17.00
60.00
12.00
150.00
23.00
Millions
$ 86.40
$ 2.10
$ 146.20
$ 1.00
$ 4.75
$ 7.75
$ 0.20
$ 32.70
$ 2.90
$ 284.00 Million
Thousands
$ 45.00
$ 180.00
$ 800.00
$ 480.00
$ 120.00
$ 60.00
$ 25.00
$ 300.00
$ 180.00
$ 160.00
$ 80.00
$ 36.00
$ 175.00
$ 17.00
$ 60.00
$ 12.00
$ 150.00
$ 23.00
$ 2,903.00
$ 2.93 Million
Millions
$ 18.00
$ 7.20
$ 7.50
$ 32.70 Million
�
M
N
�
W
Q
�
a
C
O
2
N
N
O
N
a-I
N
a
N
O
N
O
N
O
O
O
� O
�y O
O N
N M
N
c-I
�
O O
O O
O O
pp O O
"'� c-I I�
O N .y
N p� N
N VT
O O
O O
O O
� O O
e�l
O O O
N 7 .-I
n �
t/T VT
O O
O O
O O
� O O
e�l
O � a
N V1 .ti
m .�
c-i
N V1
O o O
O O O
O o O
O O O
0 0 0
O vi ui
� � a
� n a�
N N
r�t +�t �
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
O O
O O
O O
N N
c-i rl
N N
O O O
O O O
O O O
O O O
O O O
v o v
v o e
n n �
rl
1/T i/T iM1
O O
O O
O O
O O
� �
�D tD
O O
'-i rl
t/T N
O
O
O
O
N
M
N
rl
h
O
O
O
O
W
N
a
ri
N
O
O
O
O
O
M
rl
iA
O
O
O
O
n
c
rl
N
C
O
u
�
C
O �
0
N
� �
N
C C s C
O N p� J
� � O �
� O O � io +� �
+_' O a+ � N
3
� a�+ � i6 � O C � C
L ry �- -' ip CJ O N ._
N C � S t � � r6
� � O � t a+ t6 � O a�.+ N �
-6 . � � N L v '6 �6 — >
N
� t6 '�, u � �, K O "6 � p �
OY� � t0 C � L cN N ���
� t L �� � L� C N Y � p
°° � � 0 � � ° � ' � � > c
Z> 3� Ol O bA z� C � ��—^ �
c � .c S � �N N � ' � c
o �> o ro ra z R� 3 U= a
y� bD � Q d �'O �'O >. -6 d� N �' O_
�. N N-6 -6 � �p L C O C
i C>��� N N >N� 3 u� O
Vf Y>� U��> vTi v�i Q��i m
+n
N
N
N
N
N
O O
O O
O O
O O
vi vi
.� .i
m m
t/? VF
O O
O O
O O
O O
vi vi
m m
VT N
C
O
�
�
L
�
O
VE C
_ O
'6 ?
C
L C
�, O
O �
Z
� C
�
O �
�
v
s 3
N tl9 N
3 'v �^
H�
� �
Y o a
�
•L C p�q
N -p
tA � �
�
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
o p
O p"
� �
t/T tA
O O O
O O O
O O O
O O p
O O O
ui vi o
e-I
N 4/? iA
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
�1 u1
VT N
O O
O O
O O
O O
N N
M M
� �
O O O
O O O
O O p
O o p
O O O
�+1 �/1 O
a-I
V1 N t/F
O O O O
O O O O
O O O O
O O o p
o vi o N
t/} N l/} yF
O O O O
O O O O
O O O O
O O O O
l0 O vi ri
rn o m m
N M
V1 VT VT t/F
C
O
�
C
O �
O
N
� �
N �
L �
N O v J
C C �, [C
p � O r+ �
O y � al
3
� � l6 a_�+ � O C �
� a � ~ � t V � U
y v t0 Ul � m t N � � �
L C� � t N� Y->
i E v O�+ v K'6 t6 '- "
i6 �' v Y K u O'6 � �
t6 C i� �.a�+ > ��O t � L t0
N
� v E� ��°' L E�� v Y
� �
� v —
c� a r v� N 9 0�? " o
ta m t0 aC o9 N� U'N � U a\i
`y °� o:° 'w c v� ao � z � c �
�i � � 3 = � N � C v �
� v`° 3`° °�° v a z� R� 3 u
O O Y T � d\�
� -O a-6 .0 O Ul v N C L
O U N Y v C N � C j j C O
V� �� �� Y U�� U vTi v�i Q�
O C
O C
O C
o c
O C
o c
N �
✓� u
O
O
O
O
�
M
�
O
O
O
O
O
n
N
O O O O O
O O O O O
O O O O O
Vt M N O u1
m n rn ,ti .�
N
VT 1/T V/ VT N
O O
O O
O O
O O
�+i O
N l0
N N
� Y N i' V
io a d a�i d�
a= L p Q � O
= = a' � Y �
2 � « i Y
a -a 3 = `6 '� c o
� v � 9 � � v �
N �y ij � � � �� L
i i N � �
� � � N
C C — 'm i � 2
N N 9
C � F V1 C f6 N
� � � d � � O �
N ro ta � O� aR+ � C
— L
Q�� O� N� N K�
� UJ N�> N t— N� _
� p0 t6 � J N
� o o � � 'v � � u �
� � 2 2 Y C 2-6 3_-6
' O v
'� m°c° °�° a Q'° o u° � o
� o z ,,, ac
Y y � � 0 � � � � Y �
N N C
6 2����� � H o� �
�
M
N
�
W
Q
O O
O O
O O
O O
O Vl
N r
�/} i/T
O
O
O
O
O
O
c-I
�
O
O
O
O
O
oi
�
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
Vi ui
N
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
u1 �/1
� �
0
0
0
0
0
a
m
N
N
O O C
O O C
O O �
O O C
O O C
O �n u
V1 N �
O v1 u
N f
✓� .n u
o c
o c
o c
o c
o c
u'i u
ti �
v� u
C
O
U
�
C
O �
O
N
— �
4 v
C � C C
N O N O �
C � �
O yY�. p � io �
O i �. U1
J
� � a�+ f0 O � � � �
— N L � Y U � � �
� s p d' � l0 Y_✓ � U\>1 �
��.� � v� a m o �'C io
0 0� o v o°' � L Y ��
N� s L � t� N� � Lvi YO
� L [C .a�l p � > L � � > =
m.m � Z Y� p U N w '
�= C C C� N C�� \
m R>°�o z 3� �= o
O D a �� T d a�.+ � � T O.
Ya �.v .� v v s�c �`o c E
3��� Y U�i v�i Q vTi >�i m
O o o O O
O O O O O
O O O O O
O N u1 u1 O
N .--I N
c-I
lA ln v} VT N
O O O O
O O O O
O O O O
O O O O
O O O O
O O �/i I�
I� N .--I N
� � � �
O O O
O O O
O O O
O O O
O O O
ui �+i o
lD I� c-I
c-I
N V1 N
O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O
O O O I� � O O O
O r-I u1 01 W N O V1
lD ri ci ci ri
�n v� ,n v� v� ,n �n v*
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
vi o o io
N N .-I
N N N N
O
O
O
�
ri
�
O O O O O
O O O O O
O O O O O
O O O O O
O O O O O
O O O �n ui
.--I N .--I 7 GO
l/? i/T 1/T t/T i/f
O.
�p � N
L � O. Q '6
� Lf1 N v v
"o 'a u
_ � � .
v � - V Q H
C � O � O � —
N N fl- u O_ � -p
E O- \ � L 3 ^
Ol N �= � O Y
�_ L Q- a+ H u p
Q N>� m u � p ?i
L +' — L " `1
— = K }T„ `. L � � LL -O u .�
L f0 S �U C ��.� v? 9 Y
T L ?�.-. �� 41 � O � O' 3
v T Y � � � a � � � ~ �-' � � > u � N
�� Y C w l6 bA �p .._. � u V�'I � H-O = o] � � .�
v n ai
�� E� E v n Y Y o on a �.Y � E� o,� a v j o
'� � v � c o�n s> Y +-'
°' =a � o2i i Q o��9 � 3� o Np ~ oj t�a v a�i K° �� a> > Y o v � c
- Q U v a t v Y a x �+' ��^ E�°�° � Z � � 3 Y O v v
:6 � v v o��� Z o 3 v� �� E`o o- Y� Y y E v= `�o _�
� T m Y � �— �� t6 Ol � � L U� S� CO �i � Y t�6 � � ]` u
m m� � ro a en u L= m�n �; i �' �a o- � � v� vTi o�' �% ° v
c E Q a3i ? � u aai > l7 l7 —� v� v u u°�' v 9 a N��- o- � v
U l7 Q� in Q a w H U�� w ii � v�i ii m v'i > ii a 2 �n �i U Q w w
�
N
O
O
O
N
tD
rl
N
O
O
O
O
O
N
M
rl
�
O
O
C
O
O
O
�
N
N
O
O
W
Y1
a
�
�
0
0
0
0
0
ri
�
N
O
O
O
O
�
�
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
N
v
0
a v
3 �'
O �
C � �...
v � v
E @; °
ro =
3 O. u
ai m
w oC m
�
M
N
�
W
Q
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O vl
� ti
O
O
O
O
O
O
�
O
O
O
O
O
�
m
� �
O O O O O
O O O O O
�/t O O O O
I� O O O ✓t
iD O O O Ot
m ti m �n a
m
VT VT Vl N VT VT N
O O O O O
O O O O O
O � O � O
u1 00 O �(1 O
.� m �n m m
VT a/? l/? t/? N
O O O O O O
O O O O V1 O
O O O � � O
M lp M lp N O
N c-I N e-I `-I ci
N iA V1 VT VT
i/}
O G
O C
O �
O C
O C
ui u
N �
VT 4
N
v
N
a
o p
v a a
� � �
� � m
x °1
v o " ^ "
'o m ° � o °1
o fl- a E fl- -
J � E � � -
> > �
0 0 0 � u'� � U°' z
- p i
� 3 �3 a�i o- �' `—° a y i v v v
� n Y U U N v O' �' O`� � Ul
U � Y j� N V Ul d' N t v v � � -
Yj F O_ Q H �- `C N Q N � U� U� � 0 v „'�
�� fl- O_ v u _6 � N O. � u'ti N f0 "6 � b0
d � 3� u" � Q � 14 �- �° °' � v a>
L N � T N� K
6 O s N
o a° u d°1 v c n"' v�� v Y u rc �.°' o'c
� o � � o � o m �, > � �ou v '� F � v ,. o �
�~ c`o �.~- � a� v a a`� `v v v O�� Q a d � a E
3LLx�wc�.�u"=�rc"� ���.,�ozrc"�ti `�°u°
O
O
O
O
O
0
M
�
Vf
�/f
O
O
O
O
O
vi
�O
N
rl
N
O
O
O
O
�
�
�
V
.�I
H
O
O
O
O
O
M
V
N
rl
H
O
O
O
O
O
vi
M
�
rl
�
O
O
N
Oi
m
N
N
O
O
W
T
0
�
N
�/T
O
�
l�0
N
N
M
N
N
T
�
�
T
LL
O
0
0
c
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0�n o 0 0 0 0 0�n
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0� o 0 0 0 0 0 00
O O O O O O O O O O Vl ti O O O O O O t0
^� r 00 N vt iD N vt O O M M��� vl O O l0 O N
Q L!1 V1 M 01 M N l0 O N N N N N
F M M N M
� �--I N
�
Q t? V} lA 4A VT V} lA 4R VT VF V} VT VT 1/T VF V} VT i/T Vf
O O
O O
O O
L O O
� N N
W N
�!.l
Y O O
�
a O O
lp O O
- N O
y N iD
� � �
W
A
3
`m
3
w
�
�
0
N
W
3
w
�
`m
.0
A
N
C
N
E
a
Q
NI�
d
N
N
a
c
0
m
N
�
d
C
W
�
O
O
O
O
W
m
ti
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
00 0 �o v;
o m m
N
+/? N l/T 1/T
O
O
0
0
0
�
m
N
O
O
O
Vi
�
�
O
O
O
O
W
m
H
0
0
0
0
0
oi
m
M
i/F
O
O
0
0
0
ui
m
V} N
O O O
O O O
O O C
O O O
0 0 0
00 N O
iD �/1 N
N ti M
N N VL
O O
O O
O O
O N
o a
V} N
O O O
O O O
O O O
O O O
N N a
00 '+ m
ti � b
+n v� +n
O o 0 0 0 0 o O O o 0
O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O�+t O O O O O uf
O O O�� O O O O O t�0
O M M iD N iD O O �O O tp
O N N �--I rl .-I N �--I �--I M
N M
a/1 i/1 +/T t/T �N a/1 +/T t/T 'V) i/T N
c „
o L
� O
L N �
� K .
�
> O
�
N
O �
� � -
a-I v
N � � •
N
v O
_ Q
� Q \
Q R
_ F L
_ � T
�' � m _.
a c r y v
�', � �� ? ++ -
� -
'. a� LL �-a v\�i F�-
� a�i w v f6 �, v�
� � i � �' � a ° '_' v
m v °' � o -a
' ��= C� v�^i u C s a�+ 2 �
� ��.� 0 Q� a C � 0�� J
'. C Q K � 2 U 3 Y UI y!�
; m"' � Y O � O. U � � Z O C U N
Q � Q
� N� N Vt Y � Vt � N L y O
' ` bD m d w 7 j= al > O— ly �
Q� ou �n ` O L al N
N Y � d i= N t�i� V � y� � v 1��0
' U m O N N � ro N al W E _
'. � � 2 K K H 2 H K CJ H lJ LL �
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0� o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0�
O O O O O O O O O O O O N Vl I� .ti O O O O O O O O 0
�+1 M O O� N vt O� O� O W vt Ol CO � O vt O� O� vl C
N I� In a Ol M O1 N M M W tD �--I C
l0 I� M N V
�
VT VT VT V} lA lA lA 1/T V} lA lA VT VT V} VT lR VT VF V} VT VT iA VF V? 4
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
vl ✓1
ti �
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
o ui o
'+ v
N Vl +/T
O
O
0
0
0
�
M
N
O O
O O
O O
O O
0 0
V O
N I�
N M
N V1
O O
O O
O O
� T
N
l/T lA
O O O
O O O
O O O
O O O
00 m O
m n n
r� m
� � �
O O O
O O O
O O O
� O ti
� ti
N V1 N
O O O
O O O
O O O
V1 O V1
m ti .�
� � �
O O O O O O O O O O O O C
O O O O O O O O O O O O C
O O O O O O O O O O O O C
O O O O O�+t O O O O O O u
O O O N vl I� O O O O O o
O vl O W�/1 01 �0 N O Vl O vl 0
O1 �--I N M M �--I '-I 00 �--I V
�
Vl'V? Vl Ll M1R 'N Vl VT Vl VT VT V} U
C
o a
N y � � �0
C � C � N O N
O� O = Y � N
ry 'a+ �n Y Y
�,� v L >' '" �-� F a `o
4 � cc .. -O a`� � v � � 3
,� a � a�i a �v � � — u
- t O O'� O � L—
� ? = 4
� K L Q K� C 0 O E v), L O_
v y
� � � -
v L L v ° E " o . ° `-' u � ?, v _. " �
� H m v 3 v � m'.. - o "o .... � ,n v �,� � m
� � Z> N O. � � _� O' � O_ O � T � Q� � N
[C K N�� Ul � V� v C u� j�YC—, ~ 3 7 u L
N � K y�0 K O p b9 � N
� L s+ _ � L UJ p_ � 0 0 ��. m Q]
C9 b9 in m� � `1 J d' � v N� N= v N� t Q=
2 2 C= N'O =�. ��� � L O Q>~ N O N �� v yl
� v rVo � bA a� O 4 Uai � y al L U��—� T
O O � Y d C � � d N� C N aU o] vt U y— a�+ U r"a � N
ri v v C N.6 "O >�� >C C ✓1 -O v j l:/ C7 v U UI d W �(p >
NI �� Y U K 0>[Y] > H O] K l../ C O O J ln i1 N (.7 Q S
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c
0 0 0 0 0 0 0�n o 0 0 0 0 0 o u
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � o 0 0 0�n o o �
� ti O I� � O�+i O�O W O O O ai vi �n f`
^ N I� N l0 c-I rl M M N� l0 1� C
O� vl M .ti lv
� �
QvT VT V} VT vT vT V} N VT VT vT V} VT VT VT u
O O G
O O C
O O C
O O [
O O C
V1 Vi C
i0 I� C
r
V} VT Y
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
ui vi
N �
O O
O O
O O
O O
ui vi
� �
O O C
O O C
O O C
O O C
.�-I O
oi vi e
N (
V} N t
O C
O <
O C
O <
O C
O C
M f
M �
�
O O O G
O O O C
O O O <
O O O C
O O O C
0 0 � r
rn n io t
� N C
Vl V? M1n t
O O O O O O O O O O C
O O O O O O O O O O <
O O O O O O O O O O C
O O O O vl O O O O O
O O O O I� O O O O vl f
vt O N O lD W O O O Ol
.-I l0 e'� �--I M ti M V1 7 C
M �
Vf V1 V! V? Vf Vf V1 V! V? N t
N �
� L
>
3 - v
o � -
a — � o
v n
-� � � �
o v —
— s
ry Q O O Q y
m -
o " n � � �.
c� 9 E v > o 0
� � o
o = � o � v m �
— L �- — C �0
� L� Y O V Q
„ Y_ u c v v �
a K O Y ` t � L�� a y
S � L � � N N �� W-O
a > .� � � �
� H� a p_ � 0 01 ~� v un
N v L > a� n H E'� u-p a
J 3 pp � s' O O ��.d N � ��
>> Z��� Y � v w U K v��
¢ ¢ > � c '" � � a a� a� � = on
ao v v°1 �� Y o~n �=�'e `V° U� 3 Y
o °' E LL� �¢�" a�i a�i �"o io
evl ��� x x o�n a m�¢ ti in a
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c
M v1 O O O I� v1 � u
I� M tD N I� N M �
N
VT VT N V} VT VT VT VF u
O O C
O O C
O O C
O O C
O O C
O O C
N I� G
V? lA 4
O C
O C
O C
O C
O C
ui
m n
�n u
o c
o c
o c
o c
ai a
an u
o C
O C
O C
O C
rti r
m n
vi u
O C
O C
O C
O C
O C
Ol 0
Lf 4
O C
O C
O C
a
c-i
an u
O C
O C
O C
O C
O C
O C
N
V
VT u
O C
O C
O C
O C
l0 U
o c
n r
l0 U
t/l
O O O O C
O O O O C
O O O O C
O w �n �+t 0
� .� m � r
V! N V1 V! U
Q
3
a o
s a
,� a
`o �
� 3 z u
O C O � -
N m � = O
�o � Q a
Y ti s
� „ E > �
� "' - v
v o =
� E y L V a�i
u w 3 > � � �
`w a Y'u' o'. � a�i E
� U1 j N -p �e � O
o°J � � `� 3 f6 �
� � Y S v=� j
C = u i O �
'p pp d Q m � v�l
a� � � a �
;; E � �o m � � �
.�-i c — n n c
N U � �i ¢ K �i � �
0 0 0 0 0 o c
0 0 0 0 0 o c
0 0 0 0 0 o c
0 0 0 0 0 o c
0 0 0 0 0 o c
ti O O N vt N n
W N N .-I C
o ti r
1/T V} V} VT lA 1/T U
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
�
0
0
0
0
0
0
�
O
O
O
O
O
ui
�
O
O
O
O
O
M
n
m
�
O C
O C
O C
O C
O C
rvi
� u°
+n u
O O O O C
O O O O C
O O O O C
O O O O C
O O O O C
O N �ll N �
N rl
N �
N N V1 i/� Y
0
N N
r' � �
a N Y
`o
v = � �
K N � �
� L ' F
o > � �
o '� � � '
L � d � Y
� O
�o °' a `� 3
e� y � � v
D � on -... Z
v �
Z S � � Y
m a � m 3 �
-o v `o � v 3
o � � y o z '_'
N > fl- � UJ �
O > N — � 3
N V1 K V1 i ii d
0 o c
0 o c
�n o �
� V V
L!1 U
I� I� c
l/T 4? V
0 o c
0 o c
0 0 �
�n o �
I� N f
� � �
O O C
O O C
O O C
O O C
�/i �/i [
Vl Ll 4
O O G
O O C
O O C
O O C
O � �
M N L
V1 V} 4
O O C
O O C
O O C
O O C
o n �
� � 0
Vl Ll 4
O
a
t
v
K
�
o v°
19 0
� �
L �
N v
� �
v v
� ?
V p`
C @
~ a
� � �
NI Q �
o c
o c
o c
o c
vi u
lo V
N f
I rl e
� N v
o c
o c
o c
o c
o c
i vi u
I rl e
ti�
O C
O C
O C
O C
O C
O C
i �n u
t/) L
O C
O C
O C
O C
O C
O C
vl u
m o
F V1 4
O C
O C
O C
O C
O C
O C
�n u
co 0
� t/) L
ryl i
N '
N :
0
v
m
�
m
Q
>
�
�
�
T
O
N
J
�
V
O
_
C
�
L
N
O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O
O✓1 O O�/1 O O O O u'1 vt
�I� O V1 N N N�--I �--I a N
h N O �
N N
N V1 V? N V1 V} N Vf V1 VT Vl
O
V �
O
O N
� �
O nj
K
L -
C bL
v T
� _ � - N
C v p C v v i
� 3 � - >N � V v
N �> E a v O N
y � � y � t�J =��� V
N _ �0 .... N N �
3 C �l6 3 C � p Ul J � bD
� � = � _ � � � L � � >
_ � �` _ � N U � a+
O O O 'a � C C
�' d+-' K T d N c��� N 3
'6 -6 � '6 � � N m �
v E Y-a v E = a v� O_ N E
,�m"°o 3,�m`,�¢¢3uw�
ENGINEERING FUND
REVENUE SUMMARY
ENGINEERING FUND FUND 05
REVENUES
REVENUE SOURCE 2013 ACTUAL 2014 ACTUAL 2014 BUDGET 2015 BUDGET 2016 BUDGET °/ CHANGE
CHARGES FOR SERVICES
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS $430,657 $363,708 $520,000 $480,000 $510,000 6.25°/
MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES $541 $243 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 0.00°/
RIGHT OF WAY PERMITS $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00°/
TOTAL LICENSES AND PERMITS $431,198 $363,951 $526,000 $486,000 $516,000 6.17%
INTERFUND TRANSFERS
GENERAL FUND RETAINER
ADMINISTRATION $13,500 $13,500 $13,500 $13,500 $13,500 0.00°/
CODE ENFORCEMENT $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 0.00°/
ROAD AND BRIDGE $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 0.00°/
PARKS $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 0.00%
PLANNING $16,000 $16,000 $16,000 $16,000 $16,000 0.00%
GENERALFUNDFEES
CODE ENF/FOOTING INSP/GIS $38,340 $29,636 $30,000 $35,000 $35,000 0.00%
PLANNING FEES $3,833 $17,260 $8,500 $8,500 $8,500 0.00%
OTHER FEES $26,177 $36,755 $14,000 $14,000 $14,000 0.00%
IT FEES $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 0.00%
UTILITY FUND FEES
RETAINER $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 0.00%
SSES $31,335 $53,080 $11,000 $11,000 $11,000 0.00%
MISCELLANEOUS $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
STORM UTILITY RETAINER $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 0.00%
STORMUTILITYFEES $28,045 $20,069 $30,000 $31,500 $35,000 11.11%
CITY HALL FUND FEES $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 0.00%
WMO FEES $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00%
SPECIAL PARK FUND MISC. $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 0.00%
INTEREST INCOME $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 0.00%
UNAPPROPRIATED FUND TRANSFEI -$8,200 -$8,200 -$8,200 -$8,200 -$8,200 0.00%
TOTAL INTERFUND $179,030 $208,100 $153,800 $160,300 $163,800 2.18%
TOTAL ENGINEERING FUND REV. $610,228 $572,050 $679,800 $646,300 $679,800 5.18%
2/4/2016 Engineering Fund Summary-2013-2014-2015.x1sx
ENGINEERING
FUND 5 DEPARTMENT 15
CAT OBJ DESCRIPTION 2013 2014 2015 2016 %
ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET CHANGE
ENGINEERING
4110 SALARIES-REGULAR $341,175 $354,553 $368,888 $380,469 3.14%
4115 SALARIES-OVERTIME $12,599 $13,025 $10,000 $10,000 0.00%
4130 SALARIES-TEMPORARY $9,810 $6,192 $10,000 $10,000 0.00%
4131 INSURANCE $68,062 $68,562 $80,325 $80,325 0.00°/a
4133 WORKERS COMPENSATION $1,956 $2,737 $2,950 $3,688 25.02%
4134 PERA $25,320 $25,670 $29,364 $29,285 -0.27%
4135 FICA $27,247 $26,955 $29,750 $30,636 2.98%
4139 OPEB $5,712 $5,835 $0 $0 0.00%
TOTAL HUMAN RESOURCES $491,882 $503,531 $531,277 $544,403 2.47%
4200 RENTALS AND LEASES $665 $850 $800 $800 0.00%
4209 CITY HALL OCCUPANCY $46,980 $46,980 $46,980 $49,329 5.00%
4210 TELEPHONE $3,920 $3,976 $4,000 $4,000 0.00%
4220 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
CITY AUDIT $3,025 $3,050 $3,050 $3,050 0.00%
ASBUILT SCANNING $0 $0 $1,000 $1,000 0.00%
OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $591 $777 $2,000 $2,000 0.00%
4250 LIABILITY AND AUTO INSURANCE $8,663 $8,737 $11,160 $11,160 0.00%
TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $63,845 $64,370 $68,990 $71,339 3.40%
4300 OFFICE SUPPLIES $1,728 $1,927 $2,500 $2,500 0.00%
4301 COMPUTER SOFTWARE $3,047 $3,241 $3,000 $3,000 0.00%
4305 OPERATING SUPPLIES $513 $735 $700 $700 0.00%
4318 POSTAGE $33 $21 $300 $300 0.00%
4320 GAS AND OIL $1,642 $1,394 $1,650 $1,650 0.00°/a
4330 EQUIPMENT REPAIR $297 $321 $1,500 $1,500 0.00%
4331 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE/COMPUTER EQUIPMENT
COMPUTER REPLACEMENT $2,947 $2,104 $3,000 $3,000 0.00%
MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT $1,179 $0 $1,250 $1,250 0.00%
TOTAL COMMODITIES $11,384 $9,744 $13,900 $13,900 0.00%
4400 CONFERENCES AND SCHOOLS $3,371 $3,824 $5,000 $5,000 0.00%
4402 BOOKS AND SUBSCRIPTIONS $139 $18 $250 $250 0.00%
4404 MEMBERSHIP DUES $344 $909 $800 $900 12.50°/a
4410 CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT $233 $0 $250 $250 0.00%
4415 MILEAGE AND AUTO ALLOWANCE $803 $937 $800 $900 12.50°/a
4490 SUNDRY EXPENSE $165 $172 $250 $250 0.00%
4491 DEPRECIATION $4,559 $6,552 $4,550 $4,550 0.00°/a
TOTAL OTHER CHARGES $9,614 $12,412 $11,900 $12,100 1.68%
4620 CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $40,000 $0 -100.00%
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $40,000 $0 -100.00%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $576,725 $590,056 $666,067 $641,742 -3.65%
CAPITALOUTLAYITEMS REQUESTED APPROVED
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
2016 BUDGET