The URL can be used to link to this page

112800 PK WS AgP• CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD PARK COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS COUNCIL WORK SESSION 7:15 P.M. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2000 AGENDA 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION A. Roll Call Berndt Puzak Arnst Bix Themig Young_ Dallman Love Stover Zerby Garfunkel Liz6 B. Review Agenda • 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of November 14, 2000 (Att -42A Draft) 3. DISCUSSION REGARDING FUNDRAISING — PROPOSED GOLF TOURNAMENT 4. DISCUSSION REGARDING STATUS OF PARK FOUNDATION 5. DISCUSSION OF STATUS OF PARK FUNDS 6. DISCUSSION REGARDING GIDEON GLEN — ROLE OF PARK COMMISSION 7. DISCUSSION ON THE LRT TRAIL UNDERPASS AT COUNTY ROAD 19 8. ADJOURNMENT • CITY OF SHOREWOOD • PARK COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2000 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:30 P.M. MINUTES UrIFT 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING Chair Arnst called the meeting to order at 7:37 P.M. A. Roll Call Present: Chair Amst, Commissioners Bix, Themig, Young, Dallman and Puzak; City Engineer Brown; Council Liaison Zerby. Excused Absent: Commissioner Berndt B. Review Agenda Dallman moved, Themig seconded, to approve the Agenda as submitted. Motion passed 6/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of October 10, 2000 (Att.42A Draft Summary) • Puzak moved, Bix seconded, approving the Minutes of October 10, 2000, as presented. Motion passed 6/0 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR South Tonka Little League representative's Gordy Lindstrom and Brian Tischy addressed the Commission regarding Park improvements. They approached the Commission asking for consideration at the December meeting of several issues related to the third phase of Little League's park improvement plan. With phases one and two complete, which include the addition of dugouts on fields #1 and #2, resodding, and the building up of professional type pitching mounds, they are requesting four items of the City. The first request Little League has for Freeman Park is for the City to install underground irrigation on fields #1 and #2; second, they would like to have water available at the concession stands to hook up hoses etc.; next, they would like to see the City provide restroom facilities at concessions; and finally, they are looking for approval and electricity for scoreboards on these fields. Discussion ensued, with Chair Arnst asking for clarification over who is to fund these items. Tischy indicated they expected the City to pay for the irrigation system and concession restrooms, however, they were trying to raise funds for the scoreboards. Zerby inquired as to how Freeman Park compares to the other facilities they play at in other cities. Tischy replied that Freeman is by far the best facility they play at, as it exists, and is used most often. Zerby asked if there were any other facilities nearby that could be held up as an example of this phase three -type development. Tischy identified the Optimist Park Fields in Glen Lake off Excelsior Boulevard. Zerby inquired also if Tischy was aware of how that park was is funded. Tischy believed the Optimist Club and City of Minnetonka paid for the improvements, PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2000 Page 2 of 6 whereas, in the case of Freeman Park, Men's Club and private donation has paid for the improvements • for baseball. Chair Amst asked Engineer Brown to estimate where the City's budget was over the next five years, as it would relate to funding such an effort. Brown estimated that irrigating fields could roughly run $20,000 per field, plus, the added expense of installing water into concessions where there currently are no floor drains to meet plumbing codes could have an expensive impact as well. Brown reiterated that the Park Fund budget is currently stretched to its limit, with many improvement commitments already being executed via Eddy Station, the Skate Park, etc. The City, in cooperation with other agencies, is actually taking on fundraising ventures to help stabilize that fund at this point. The capital improvements funding schedule over the next five years indicates they are stretched thin. With this in mind, Arnst asked Little League when they had hoped to have their phase three complete. Tischy indicated spring of 2001. Bix pointed out that it took approximately seven years to install bathrooms at the other end of Eddy Station. To which Brown added, Eddy Station had been slated in capital improvements for seven years before finally moving forward. Arnst asked the Commission if they felt this request should be considered further at the December meeting. Puzak felt uncomfortable saying they could proceed with anything other than assessing the needs and building a long -range plan. The budget, as they all know, is spent. Tischy added that they are aware of, and sympathetic to, the funding problems, but wanted to get their request officially on the boards. He requested that, if there was some possibility of creative financing, they are considered. In the past, they have gotten much of their funding from other sources and businesses for improvements to the park and might be able to add to the improvement effort here. Puzak agreed it was beneficial to have record of their phase three process documented. Even though the dollars don't exist now, the Commission could still support their efforts. • Zerby reiterated that the Park and City have already committed to and have many other priorities. He maintained that if Freeman is already deemed a "premier" field in the little league realm, what might the importance be of deviating funds from one source to another at this time to meet their spring deadline. He believed the request a bit out of balance. Tischy agreed, that although Freeman is one of the best fields around, he wanted to clarify that the money came from little league resources - resources that they've tapped into to get it to that level. Tischy added that they would like the City's cooperation along this vein to continue to make improvements. Council member Liz6e, as an observer this evening, found it difficult to justify the expenditure. She supported Zerby's comments that, with Eddy Station not far away and the commitment there, it does not balance to deviate from their priorities at this time. Amst assured Little League that their requests will be on record, and if they would like to submit past, present, and/or future long -range plans, they may do so at any time. 4. REPORTS A. Report on City Council Meeting of October 23, and November 13, 2000 - (Council member) Chair Arnst reported that during the Council Meeting of October 23rd they discussed the Golf Tournament idea as a possible fundraising tool. Council also requested a work session be scheduled with the Park Commission later this month to discuss three specific items. First, the role Parks will play in the Gideon PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2000 Page 3 of 6 Glen project, second, further brainstorming on fundraising efforts; and finally, the possibility of tunneling the • LRT under Highway 19. The date being considered for the work session is November 28, 2000. Zerby reported that during the meeting of November 13, Council approved expenditure of funds for the Warming House Shelter at Cathcart Park. There was also discussion over the Skate Park resurfacing expenditure. Council approved expenditure not to exceed $6,000, which is a small portion of what it will take to finance the resurfacing project. Unfortunately, it is unlikely the resurfacing will be complete this season. Commissioner Young asked if Mn /DOT would be contributing to the cost. Brown added that the contractor is responsible for all damage incurred on the surface and will be splitting the cost of the overlay with the City. At that time the City will also add a bituminous curb. Zerby reported that the purchase agreement for Gideon Glen has been signed. B. Report on Land Conservation Environment Committee Activities - (Park Commissioner Berndt) They did not meet last month and therefore have no report. LCEC will meet November 15, 2000. C. Report on Park Foundation Meeting of October 18, 2000 - (Park Commissioner Dallman) Dallman reported that they were able to meet and discussed fundraising. The rotary has used a Golf Tournament as a fundraiser and did so at the club for a fee. Although time consuming and labor intensive, they raised money sponsoring holes and from the silent auction. They also discussed the possibility of Sports Organizations doing tournaments and fundraisers with a portion of the funds going to the Foundation. The • question remains whether Sports Organizations would be willing to share the funds they raise from such a labor- intensive project. Finally, they discussed approaching prominent figures in the community to attend or aid in the Golf Tournament fundraiser. Dallman mentioned they would be meeting November 15, 2000, to further discuss these ideas. 5. DISCUSS WITH MINNETONKA COMMUNITY EDUCATION SERVICES (MCES) REGARDING FIELD ASSIGNMENTS -DEB MALMSTEN A. Explanation by MCES of Process for Assigning Shorewood Fields to Sports Organizations Deb Malmsten, of MCES, addressed the Commission with a brief description of the field assigning process. According to Malmsten, in the past, they have brought Sports Organizations and representatives from each City together to discuss how many members, how many fields each organization needs, and how best to distribute these fields. Last year, they did not hold this meeting and simply assigned field use based on the 1999 distribution. She indicated this did not work, thus, this year they will revert to the meeting process. In January, they will ask representatives from each City and one from each Sports Organization to meet. This will be especially important this year due to the field renovation going on at MME and potentially at the high school, which could impact all field assignments. There has not been much variation in the past few years. However, since organizations keep growing and field space remains stagnant, there is a need for greater awareness and communication of use. Often, organizations give back space or time they don't need in an effort to share it with others who do. • PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2000 Page 4 of 6 B. Questions From Park Commission • Themig asked if there was any written policy dictating how fields get scheduled or allocated to different groups. Malmsten replied that organizations have simply worked it out between them. As needs have shifted and organizations have grown the groups have been very good about voluntarily giving up fields not in use. There is no written policy. There is a kind of unwritten known fact or history that you don't schedule a certain group, say East Tonka little league at Freeman when it is South Tonka little league who has done all the work to the fields. Themig inquired over the hours of use. Malmsten said they are in use 5 P.M. to dark and if a field is not in use and another organization requests it, she will often call the scheduled organization before allowing others the opportunity to use it. Bix wondered if there were any numbers they've collected over the years that identify merging trends, for instance, what organizations are growing or shrinking. Malmsten did not have access to that sort of data, but noted that soccer is continually growing with approximately 1500 kids participating. Zerby brought up Badger field. Malmsten indicated that, while there was no formal delineation, Badger was strictly a football field due to the money they've invested in it. Brown shared a little history, whereas, the field was damaged from soccer use prior to football season once, thus, causing hard feelings. Zerby noted, therefore the field sits empty April- August. Puzak asked whether Malmsten gets exact registration numbers from the Sports Organizations when they file their insurance certificates. She said they do not. Malmsten indicated that typically those numbers are not known at the time of registration. Puzak shared with Malmsten the Commission's new sports user fee program, which requires registrants to pay a $5.00 per person user fee enabling the Commission to track use. Although Puzak had hoped Community Ed already possessed these numbers, he asked Malmsten if they could reserve scheduling the fields until the user fees were received. Chair Arnst reiterated the City's desire to be a part of the January meeting to discuss everyone's needs and distribution based on exact numbers. . Malmsten could not give the January date at this time, but needs to discuss with MME the changes to their fields and the impact that will have. She also noted they would be willing to work out a way to obtain more detail. Puzak inquired if the software they have can provide information like "user hours per field" and the number of athletes. Malmsten said that although it does not, they might be able to purchase a supplemental program for about $300. that is specifically geared for sports scheduling. C. Discussion by Park Commission for Any Further Action After thanking Malmsten for her time, the Commission discussed what further action needed to be taken. Puzak said that although they did not get the total registration and athlete counts they were looking for, the Commission would be able to work with Malmsten and the Community Ed department to develop it. Chair Arnst brought up Nielsen's suggestion that the sports organization roster counts be a requirement included on registration forms and turned in with insurance statements. Themig added that it might be beneficial to put together a standard policy that says what is required of organizations to be affiliated with the city and have use of its park system. The City and organizations would enter into an agreement. Sports Organizations would be required to share proof of insurance, registrations numbers, etc. and in return the City would grants use of its facilities. Jeff Bailey, Minnetonka Girls Softball Association, appreciated the City's instigation of the "Sock" user fee; however, inquired over the way fields would be allocated. He questioned the large disparities between the different sports organizations. Themig felt the new software would be beneficial because Community Education could account for per hour per day efficient use of the fields, and when space was available they • " PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2000 Page 5 of 6 could distribute it to those in need. Bailey explained that it may be difficult for a small organization to • justify the $5 expenditure to use these fields one night a week or seldom, when there are other cities who do not charge for their use. It is easier for the large organizations, like little league, which use the fields every night to justify the fee. Brown explained that the sock user fee was established to try to apply a fee uniformly, even though we knew there might be some disparity between certain organization numbers and usage. He continued that if the City can encourage MCES to purchase the sports scheduling software, they may be able to attain the additional information they need and field allocation may change. Puzak added that managing the Park system, a $5 to $10 million asset, given all the parks, is probably worth the $300 software it would take to properly do so. Chair Arnst voiced her concern about sports organizations altering a field without first the City assessing the demand. As in the instance of South Tonka Little League developing mounds on field #5. Along with Community Ed, the Park Commission should take part in determining the allocation schedule, as well as, assessing the highest and best use of the fields. Themig reiterated that the schedule, once formalized, should come back to the Commission to take a look at to ensure that there is some level of equality between the different associations. Once they've moved to scheduling per day per hour, identifying available space should be more easily attained. Arnst again voiced her concern that the stewardship of the parks belongs to the City of Shorewood, and in the past, the City has been out of the loop. She added that some of the Sports Organizations feel they own the parks more than others do. Puzak pointed out that, although the Sports Organizations may have invested in the capital and have equity in the capital improvements they have created, the City is responsible for the Parks themselves. The user fee was brought about for the care and maintenance - i.e. feeding of the grass, the mowing and trimming. These are separate issues. 6. SKATE PARK is A. Update on Fundraising Chair Arnst shared new funding committed to the project. After the City of Deephaven dedicated $2,500 to the Skate Park in September, their Park Commission has now committed another $5,600 from their own budget. Which puts the total City donations at $21,000, for a grand total of approximately $25,000. B. Update from Design Committee Puzak reported that the Design Committee met November 13, 2000, finalizing a layout for the Skate Park. Engineer Brown shared his minutes from the previous nights meeting. With Tim Hughes help, they designed the park based on three criteria: 1) Is the equipment consistent with the original Skate Park Concept plan in general? 2) Does the equipment compliment other skate parks and not just duplicate them? 3) Does the equipment provide opportunities for a range of skating abilities and ages? As Tim Hughes indicated, the park needs "to flow ". With his expertise, the seven pieces chosen for the park fulfill these criteria. Brown shared the diagram of the Skate Park plan and its equipment attached to his memo. The cost estimate is roughly $16,000 _ $18,000 for equipment, with additional expenditures that might include the curb etc. Brown indicated that if the Commission was comfortable with the layout, he could direct staff to pin down quotes. Puzak suggested they send copies of Brown's memo to the donor cities and keep them abreast of the City's progress. Puzak also complimented Engineer Brown's efforts outlining, • designing the flow, chalking out the plan and reserving the soil needed to make the project a go when ready. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2000 Page 6 of 6 Puzak Moved to recommend Council approves the purchase of the Ramps and Rails shown in the final • design (Att. #1, Engineer Brown's memorandum of November 14, 2000), empowering staff to make the purchase of equipment, at, or not to exceed $18,500. Themig seconded. Motion passed 6/0. After a brief discussion over the viability of a small burm, fence /guard rails, or ballards along the highway side, Bix shared some photos she'd taken of another park. While in California, Bix visited a Skate park and took pictures of their regulations, park signage, and donor plaques to use as examples for Shorewood. She pointed out that although Santa Barbara had a paid attendant on duty, she believed the Shorewood Park could self regulate itself to an extent. 7. SET WORK SESSION DATE WITH CITY COUNCIL Chair Arnst reported the work session date would be scheduled for November 28, 2000, at 7:15 P.M. 8. NEW BUSINESS Amst shared with the Commission a complaint received from the Southshore Senior Center regarding parking conflicts during football. During senior center activities scheduled one evening their parking attendant was threatened by football patrons looking for parking. Due to these problems, the senior center is considering not scheduling events at the center on football nights, which is a hardship for them because this is how the center raises money for itself. They have also found people in the kitchen rummaging for food for their teams and using the private restrooms. Amst passed these complaints along to the Mayor and staff for consideration. 9. ADJOURNMENT • Young moved, Biz seconded to adjourn. Motion passed 6/0. The meeting adjourned at 9:10 P.M. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Kristi B. Anderson RECORDING SECRETARY 40 * , A C *V - DATE: November 28, 2000 • TO: Larry Brown, P.E. Director of Public Works City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 FROM: Bernie Jahn., P.E. SUBJECT: Box Culvert for HCRRA Trail Crossing - CSAH 19 Larry, this memo is to bring you up to date on the status of the proposed HCRRA trail crossing of CSAH 19. A subsurface exploration and geotecbWcal review and report was prepared by American Engineering Testing, Inc. in August 2000. Two soil borings were taken at the site and they indicated that the ground water level was 3 feet and 4 -1/2 feet below the surface. The report reviews the various options of a subsurface drainage system, preferably a gravity outfall storm sewer system. Considering the very high ground water level, coupled with the elevation of nearby Lake Minnetonka, a gravity outfall system is not possible. A lift station to constantly remove the ground water is possible but must be constantly maintained. If a power outage or a broken lift station, the box culvert will ful with water. Provisions would have to be made to allow the box to flood or high water outside the box and noire inside would cause buoyancy to lift the box up out of the road. It is my recommendation that the box culvert concept be abandoned and that a bike path/pedestrian bridge over CSAH 19 is another option that should be investigated to provide a safe crossing at the site. T� M 4 t• CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (612) 474 -3236 FAX (612) 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityhall @ci.shorewood.mn.us • • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 24 March 2000 RE: Study Session — Freeman Park Multipurpose Building FILE NO. Parks (Freeman) Staff has prepared four scenarios for funding the building. The first proposes the entire building with the outdoor canopy, financed over seven years. The second scenario does not include the canopy, which would be built later as funding allows, financed over seven years. The third and fourth scenario simply spreads the canopy vs. no canopy over 10 years. This item is scheduled for discussion at Monday night's study session. Since neither Larry of Al will be there, please call me with any questions in advance so I can be prepared to answer them at the meeting. Cc: arty Brown Al soon o e gone) Rolek .f t,,* PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER O eeman Park Multipurpose Building Cost Scenarios Cost Scenario 1 Full Building with Canopy Financed 7 years Cost Scenario 2 Building without Canopy Financed 7 years Cost Scenario 3 Full Building with Canopy Financed 10 years Cost Scenario 4 Full Building without Canopy Financed 10 years Costs calculated as shown: Building with Canopy $ 395,187 Building without Cano $ 343,187 Notes: Simple interest at 6.0 percent assumed Worksheets were not balanced for early payoff even though l ark fund might support an early payoff. 40 • Freeman Park Multipurpose Building Cost Scenario 1: Full Building with Pavilion Financed 7 years Simple Interest Rate Year Princ 2000 $(165,000) 2001 $(169,950) 2002 $(148,347) 2003 $(125,448) 2004 $(101,175) 2005 $ (75,445) 2006 $ (48,172) 2007 $ (19,262) 6.0% Net Interest Payback Balance Unpaid Bal $30,000 $(139,950) $ (8,397) $30,000 $(118,347) $ (7,101) $30,000 $ (95,448) $ (5,727) $30,000 $ (71,175) $ (4,270) $30,000 $ ( 45,445) $ (2,727) $30,000 $ ( 18,172) $ (1,090) $20,000 $ 738 $ 44 Net $(148,347) $(125,448) $(101,175) $ (75,445) $ (48,172) $ (19,262) $ 782 Notes: Interest calculated as simple annual interest at assumed rate Interest calculated on one half year period between year 2000 and 2001 due to timing of proje U ....; ... : :. :... :. : ....: ................ :....... ....ivi: iiiiiiiiiii.YSi.'.i'-•:i.:i::.; ....:: • :•;; . :... - v:.v::: v: r: v. •:: •:::. n,..N:.. .v... ,w.w:.w::.:v .,; {.NV. }v ..n. .�f ♦ N :.ttx ......... ....... ..........t:..y...... . .. ... .. .., vw: .:•::.. ..r.N,n 'v.:S xv ..x :n•.0 :•.+xr, ;.,y.;: yy ...................... .....v......................... 1v: ..�r..;}. .1.vy., ..} - t•,n . �: •:h�}h:•.k ht: �'.?1t ,v >.ry }'EE .t.. hvE• }:.. MI }••Ci... .,.x }v.. .. .tx ... ..i ..:. '. %:. .•.'v :4 v.?y'.:M : .v.0.. 1 .1.:...• , . •:.,,. }:• }:•::•.t.E•..,i, +, v?. N•.a3 \.,.,tN••. a•. ......a.rr:::...:. .:, ': �. ... •. .... .••. .. : }}�. .. . <: .. x Ew. 3 .:: .............. v 1. M.. :1 \• v v... .,;. v}:,v,.} }xv }} v'•: '•.:• :r•.:• v. v. y..; } }::: vv v::.v: •: , �:: ..v.. r... r....xv ....:.. }} : v ...v 7: }S}r}}}Ln }n.r t ^}: • r.. ,.: ...v. x.. }....w..... t. .....h.n ;vr ... .. .. .. �'+. .. : ... h..•. ............. n.. v7:::.•: �}: w::•.::::::::?::: Proj. Description 2000 ........,.; .. ;; ..,;..:.., ,..... .i ? ?:S:iiL. }ii }:iL:i•: :ti•:iririv v::.v... -. .:n..x.:vn::. ti' {. .................... .. h" Y•.1 + :• }7 •: ^h.4K: � a .E ::ik {i`iii. ♦a,.... ' ..1:v ...E,v • :•: M 11 �7 `::n Y:.., Etc . +•:•: N•. •r.•t.EEE •. v:::::: -::::.v.:: }:: }: •} }:::: ::v v:: �.v:..... r. 1 1 } :�kx :v rv::::::::?:::::.•}: : :5:::'.vv:::::::?-...,h.:fr}}h :•S ?: }X•}}?:• 2001 2002 }'v ".:t.X: i:' -• ••• :• •: • :.••'.. :: •t. r; : v.r.vx:..v:::v<: }}} uvh•.•. .u,•i..:.,, ;}t yy. u:•. ,5.::•.v: v x u. } .'y�:: +:.: ? ::•$Cs1, . w.,v: v rvx. vv }i}:....} .+�'i.:.v 2003 '.:v .. i. }:Jii4ri:.v iL } %•:i. }:�: , \; f . T+..: 1f.• ? }t } }y •+ SS.. tvhE {.: 1 '$ ?:: ;y� .t E r> �j ,:... t. , Ei \:v \v'.v 2004 Freeman Park a Multipurpose Building $ 395,187 b Sanitary Sewer and Site Restoration $ 76,875 c Parking Lot and Access Closure So $ - Cathcart Park d Purchase Temp Warming House $ 5,000 e Surface Tennis Court $ 3,500 f Permanent Warming House I Silverwood Park Surface Tennis Court $ 4,000 Other h Bleacher Improvements $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 I Skate Park $ 7,000 Total Expenditures $ 482,062 $ 8,500 $ 9,000 $ - $ - L� • I 5cehario 1: full building - 7 years payback ' This schedule is based upon zero capital outlay projects years 2005 and 2006 V c, gM SU I'M 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 3eginning Cash Balance $ 200,086 $ 921 $ 5,045 $ 10,296 $ 24,903 $ 39,876 $ 55,222 $ 70,953 : Dedication Fees $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 general Fund Contribution $ 10,000 $ 1 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Sports Organization Fees $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 : Foundation $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 concession Sales $ 1,500 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 Internal Fund (GF) $ 165,000 Payback Loan (GF) $ (30,000) $ (30,000) $ (30,000) $ (30,000) $ (30,000) $ (30,000) $ (20,.000) Transfer from Sewer Fun $ 76,875 Mn/DOT Funding Closure Capital Outlay Projects $ (482,062) $ (8,500) $ (9,000) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Interest income @ 5.0% 22.48 123.04 251.11 607.39 1 972.58 1 1,346.89 1 1,730.56 2,373.83 Ending Cash Balance $ 921 1_ $ 5,045 $ 10,296 $ 24,903 $ 39,876 1 $ 55,222 1 $ 70,953 1 $ 97,327 ' This schedule is based upon zero capital outlay projects years 2005 and 2006 V c, • Freeman Park Multipurpose Building Cost Scenario 2: Building without Canopy Financed 7 years Simple Interest Rate 6.0% Net Interest Year Princ Payback Balance Unpaid Bal Net 2000 $(113,000) 2001 $(116,390) 2002 $(102,173) 2003 $ (87,104) 2004 $ (71,130) 2005 $ (54,198) 2006 $ (36,250) 2007 $ (17,225) $20,000 $ (96,390) $ (5,783) $20,000 $ (82,173) $ (4,930) $20,000 $ (67,104) $ (4,026) $20,000 $ (51,130) $ (3,068) $20,000 $ (34,198) $ (2,052) $20,000 $ (16,250) $ (975) $18,000 $ 775 $ 47 $(102,173) $ (87,104) $ (71,130) $ (54,198) $ (36,250) $ (17,225) $ 822 n LI Notes: Interest calculated as simple annual interest at assumed rate Interest calculated on one half year period between year 2000 and 2001 due to timing of proje U ,.. •, :K iSM \, 4. , t. }S.nn.yj..:....`.} .::,.. •. r :iiv x Proj. .... .. ,. ...•n ,',• :.: :.: ,. {, •.,v}x:•.. ,,..,:.,.....: :n• }) .a.. , u •T.�',t,x•.xxva.•.v.,.. x ,.. ,n :•n:ir.... .,:::,v:,:v:kx :..,:::x0.Y•.4,v. , ., : :, v. wn.} ...: •.: - +. ... ... .:.:. .. h : i] \ w: }, .}. n h ,.......\ . :n .: j:;,,.t...::.. '•:t•:: nv:::::;•,...::•:.a: v:::: . \:,v...,,. �.ny.4,,: q „ :��>�� wy} "yyy \ •., .x•} ?, ?;•Y.:i::t w} } S` }.`:'.{.',..v.. \: , i4•....Jr+,v:.vr. L ,4......... v .: n:,..,•.,:,,...,,.,,:}. .,,x Description ,,,.. .:: .... }....... x•:.. : . { ?i \t• }: .: .. .:,.. A±• Si{: ,,•n.:.,22�::i ::C,a;:R:?:`::�• v,''.:y:. •,;t••.:yyyyv y:r., :n:v. +'•. h`:.. ,: ... •,v: 7 . c .. . -:. !\ ii,;r K,wn •.�i:t��:��'':�t ?: .`f'1�k1i' ?v. }. ...}:'r:. .ni:. ...�............nx v..n v..... .. :v. {,,, ...........: r:: y}}:.} x}}}:• r:• } } }y }yyv:. }} }y.}} }e. } } }..,... 2000 2001 2002 x;'R,. .;C, �y } •bn �ntt �.'.,.ra, } -, . ;.• ,, ,•. �* • vd :v {v.Q'� •nL•, �•nxxi \• .y., v.4 . � wnK4iy ,r} ;i:' { {A, Av: ° ii rii, a...:,.... } }}:•} 2003 {, ..ai.�:i 4•n .: x,a:.:... :n,.nx„v:,•.t„ii{;:.,•:n:::.:. > +m:{th. . tiC {�„ n. {ti�:ii i`:n'L�i'`ti�: x >� y ?;:;. 4. r.+S:i:i`v n,�}r. a";: }:• }::} }.......} „ y;.y:: }r..yy.: }.::: 2004 Freeman Park a Multipurpose Building $ 343,187 b I Sanitary Sewer and Site Restoration $ 76,875 c Parking Lot and Access Closure So $ - Cathcart Park d IPurchase Temp Warming House $ 5,000 e Surface Tennis Court $ 3,500 f Permanent Warming House I Silverwood Park Surface Tennis Court $ 4,000 Other h Bleacher Improvements $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 I Skate Park $ 7,000 Total Expenditures $ 430,062 1 $ 8,500 1 $ 9,000 $ - $ - • • scenario 2: building without canopy - 7 years payback 0 0 . ... .. ..... ... ... ..... .,. : .. .. .. .:..: .. .:: :.n :n v.x.....a ...,... ra .a..:v..•,.:.a:.:.: J .......?•vr .... 2.2: F...:. x....... ,.v...v n. . ? :...... } ........ ......... .: : J }. }. .. .. v..... ..�.. ... :..::.:, n. .. ,. ..... r.. n::::,..2.....2.:.:..:. : ..,.. .. .. ... ?...r ..... ... .... r. ...,c ... ,:,.,. .:. .........a...,,.:,. n. .......n.,:..,v r....... .... .1$.... ...... v:.. :...:..,. ., „ {: .a:.. : < ?:r:;•• n n4. •fa. F: ?r!•n ;;..• {::F:: 2 b ., ... .... .. .....: .„ :.,:, ...:.a„ :..... T. v,.. } .. .4. }.. .. .... .., .2. 2.x r. ?, .2...a,......:x n:.. .... .... .. ..x ... : .:. :. ...... r ::.r,:., .$. i. : ^i�-•� r . ,,:.n: :•., .,..,,.:.::. ,r. :...:. a,., .. ... Y. n. ? : .,...:2•x . ::...:.k.a2:. :.Y4: r Y..... n...4..... .. f.. .... .. } .:.. ..x.:.:2 .. ?...... .... �yr�r .:1�1E�:�::.� .....,:,... ,r.. n .,.,. :.. v........ .... .. r. r. .,C. 2•..?. .. xn.:<.,:v.., :w . e...... :............. .. r .r : ... .. .: .. .: ... „: ...r.:.,• : : : :.r.a ?r ,{:: »..... .n. .. .. .. .....x.. }..'�i .. ::.n .A. .. .:R•.. ... .....r.. r.. .'.? ............. .. . :............v ... }3. ... ... . }: ... 1 � {(�i ■� •r•Sr Rig!............ :...:::..::..: n..... :..:..:: :.::.:::: :,.::..::::,:: ,..:::.,:..:.:.:..:.::.... n..:.::..:.:,:..a::::.. , ..... r.:.: ... ........ .s. .}........,.{.:.,,:... ».,:..:,} ., v•n ?2:t:: ::•.:•n :..v: ...<•}. .a ......... ....r r.:.... T:OS ..... .. :. :• :w: :., ....... n..... ;vi..... n vv: v,:v: •.4T, v p .:... r.. r.... : r : }. ::t•: r: :4: • \v. :.. {,:2: ; T.:,{.. :JY }:. ■{��.:� , ; { }....'2`v,} Y•: }: ?•:i2•Yv •S v:�F'•. •.P� Fw, ? :�. \ } >>�� c.. ?t, a..:.:...,.::... nv... n.. Y::::.,.:::. nt:..:.v:.. ::, }::::2..:. ::.,..v f2o::.r:::..:...:.:: r. ...r. .. r ... , :,,L ., :n <;:. ,..;,. :•} }: < } • }:�i:: :ty22 .7:Yi'•i'�.5. v}.P. •n .$r: f' ..,.: r .a; . ",t . x :..L,•..,t::,...F:;;•:? y r�,y�$� v. ,,.. ;Y:.:•.J.: }..,:..:.T }:.:TTT ::2,...: ...,.a,.a:.:::.. r...: .. w::4: ^'•Y: +.:....... ..}.. }: •:: •.v: :•k•: ::•. ..! r ..t .. }..r. w: .v.}:•; ..r}.t: :S;i ^`.:$<,4`.:: }:.. : ; ..yr. r�•: :. A:n• ., :. .:..a; n:•.::?. 2Y F? •. {. .:.x,,..: } ir..J Y 2 5. !• . . J.?•}... x4. .,.2.,.,.ix. 4 .. .. ..... a.., X.n:: m. ...vn22, ..a. ..:..,...a... : .. ry .. ..} .... .. .. ... .. ...., .:.. .: :.. :.. r..a.. x...v . a.. 2•: �:{{ FF`` r. ,4 A! :. , r �r... ..... Rw:>: •.. , { : ,..f. .v. ... .. 2.:..2'2 •.'+�2 :, i. .. :n.. }w ... ? :. ,.{ ..,.... {+,x v.. rf.•,.. t,............. .. r vb � T'b :.: {. �}'r.. i ... a . ........ .. S.. }...� ..n .... .? ,. is ..... .. Y{ ..a.. i. xv.., nn,.....• .. .x:v .. xn ..}...: Y. .�• :. .r..x.......... :... ...:. }.n:.:: n:v: ::: :.:. .n•:::.. F n.......{.:. v:} n{.. .v:. .:'••: :•..... ... a..:..... < r:: ••. •.. ... ? \'•.. :. }.:.v.,..l:n 5 } .............. }{....... }:Yr:{� nv.... .n..........n ..............t..v ... •`•:S�i: .; ...: •r• ! : +:J'fx: {{ ? + : S.. r. v:iv nt nl..n}'... .X � : }.........n. ..::'.:r .x n.x ...............:.n.. !. ?$ :? .2. .:F.....n.. }4..d .. n: {..v�0. {4.•'•. v: }. ...»:... ...:. • ..... rn..nn.n.....vvv..:........v. ,'�.'• <... S}.. .......... ?•n .•n�`:?.r:.: - : n3 }r�:.t•'r .?:•'?v:}.�'r.�i :.: n,:v. ::,i�....:.:{......v... •: .!x £: n. Y.n ...4nv}, {•r. >:v +v.: }: x::::'•:'•:•�: v nv..........a.,. .O.: }: ?• }i:•:• t2•:{ 22?{ 2`.•:'•:•`.•: i?: 2cv}a.:}.: 22< ti>. 2.:.. 2w.:nw: Jn: 2{•. i,{•.< v.::{ v`. vv.:::, isx: v.< x.. nn. nn^ ......vn{.........:..:n........ 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 $ 200,086 $ 921 $ 15,295 $ 31,052 $ 56,428 $ 82,439 $ 109,100 $ 136,427 3eginning Cash Balance $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 'ark Dedication Fees 3eneral Fund Contribution $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 >ports Organization Fees $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Sark Foundation $ 1,500 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 - oncession Sales nternal Fund (GF) $ 113,000 ' ayback Loan (GF) $ (20,000) $ (20,000) $ (20,000) $ (20,000) $ (20,000) $ (20,000) $ (18,000) transfer from Sewer Fun $ 76,875 Vln /DOT Funding Closure $ - �apital Outlay Projects $ (430,062) $ (8,500) $ (9,000) $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - nterest Income @ 5.0% 22.48 373.04 757.36 1,376.30 2,010.70 2,660.97 3,327.50 4,060.68 Ending Cash Balance $ 921 $ 15,295 1 $ 31,052 $ 56,428 $ 82,439 $ 109,100 $ 136,427 $ 166,488 votes: This schedule is based upon zero capital outlay projects years 2005 and 2006 • Freeman Park Multipurpose Building Cost Scenario 3: Full building with Canopy Financed 10 years Simple Interest Rate 6.0% Net Interest Year Princ Payback Balance Unpaid Bal Net 2000 $(165,000) 2001 $(169,950) 2002 $(157,039) 2003 $(143,353) 2004 $(128,847) 2005 $(113,469) 2006 $ (97,169) 2007 $ (79,892) 2008 $ (61,577) 2009 $ (42,164) 2010 $ (21,586) $21,800 $(148,150) $ (8,889) $(157,039) $21,800 $(135,239) $ (8,114) $(143,353) $21,800 $(121,553) $ (7,293) $(128,847) $21,800 $(107,047) $ (6,423) $(113,469) $21,800 $ (91,669) $ (5,500) $ (97,169) $21,800 $ (75,369) $ (4,522) $ (79,892) $21,800 $ (58,092) $ (3,485) $ (61,577) $21,800 $ (39,777) $ (2,387) $ (42,164) $21,800 $ (20,364) $ (1,222) $ (21,586) $21,800 $ 214 $ 13 $ 227 • Notes: Interest calculated as simple annual interest at assumed rate Interest calculated on one half year period between year 2000 and 2001 due to timing of proje • ............... ....: .... ..:. ... '.. •: ..}fi n.... .. .: ..^h •.x :•.. $ },. n•. w:, 7.{,} Proj. .. ,,..,.::.:vnw,. \ nnxxx ixmw..xvn,w4.w::. ,.::nL...vxn•.,x:..:Q ny : x }. .0 ,w. . . ... . ........... ........ }` ?t2,ww,,:.n,. : } •mow,.• ; .•{.,; {.... • .. v.......... .: :.:nvx:.:. ....v .v.: ,K.:: •: .. •• \ r:,�:v, -,vpu . NYh•�Y.•. Yhx }v: .: rY�}Y:. }:.x vwx•.v. } } }: }:•w: ... }v v, •b. \. 'i�. n .n..:�i'i�.... v..�:. n... � •i '•: yn } :.}. vY ••..... x r ..,.iv '4 �}.v vnxw vnF vxvY::: n..:. �� ♦ ...xx'x ... .. A ........ ........... .: „•�. K ... �C.n v.h, : n..v....nn.,,, .. .. vxlxuwvuv {w.S.Ku:.nn.v. xsv n?w.,v:n:., y Aq:{•}}; pY%.} v.} YY::::\::; LA. y}Y V : n { V}{^ iv} :.:v::r:•.v..0 ::. :. :.::.::iY..v :•::: :::: Description +:•• ........ ........,.............. +... }. .. x, -: R•: n:•:: :.....::: ...;: ... :..........: .. , wv. , .: ....:••....- .: .: �..} �A ..J. Y. 'k }i:;:•L •� } Y } }ii.' {�i:?•: ::�:ii:: =� ...:: jj(�''..�"'► ..uhvv,•::: :'j�?fi':i: .. >•-;: ..: - ...� .......................... ,:'•: �iinv{ n}}::.Y: .. ..... \ v.. mx.: v: n.: x:. v.. vx.. i• Yii:!•: v,:: vnv. vu. w:.l :: ^:L•Y: ^:•:- }:f {{n : {:::.:. rr }YY:• }:tn ::. ABY:•}:{•} ::v v 0.......... �.. 2000 2001 2002 n ?v: t•.x:v.•nn?Y v`.:::. :2.:`.'::�. .vn nvvv v ...v}•. }•.Y, , ;x}}} }'}:• n�� }:} }::.nn : �• tii �:L•r.7:•nvi. Yrvv. xv.. }: :•:nv. } v.x:{{..Yv:{.wn..vy \1tK.•v�•n.a xvw ,: :,.v N. Ruv .....::..:.....^ }p}}Y::v 2003 ^•.i. Y' ::Y• { >': �:i`iiv �v�:t'v: >. } �YY:: } „ xvu•.K.y :v..'] .•. . },W. : xu ..:h}i ?�:,',.Y:•:v v.v : .. }' ?' }ni:. . ^ •.iY }S.vv,:j}ti:.Yii::. Y:�.... Y ^Y'• 2004 Freeman Park a Multi ur ose Building $ 395,187 b I Sanitary Sewer and Site Restoration $ 76,875 c I Parking Lot and Access Closure So $ - Cathcart Park d I Purchase Temp Warming House $ 5,000 e Surface Tennis Court $ 3,500 f Permanent Warming House Silverwood Park Surface Tennis Court $ 4,000 Other Bleacher Improvements $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 I Skate Park $ 7,000 Total Expenditures $ 482,062 1 $ 8,500 $ 9,000 $ - $ - cenario 3: Full building with canopy - 10 years payback ....... ... .... ................ ......:: •.. .. .. }.,. .. J... wf •. : > }:•: :::::: •: �:... : {t::}....t :. .,••. ..... .:..:....,...: }. i .... :} . S. .... }, .. .�... #..N /f ........ :.,. n,. ,�. .Lv...,. n.. }.: {...:. :4 : } .. r r .. .. .... {•. .::.,, :.., } L : i .n.v '•...}. ..:.. „ki :$ . {:... ,: ..,•.,.,...:yfk..: K }` .. ... \. .. , ..v..., � .,., ,.:.. >r •...:... 2000 .. .. ... ., v : vf, ,n .,[+ ...,. .}}..'r ... ........ .nv'. :. •. ,::• .. .,. ..Sh••.. f $. :'t� r ... 'Yq.. C:.u.r..\ .•�. { ,C'}'{R. r.... t. .,.. h ..:...... n:vn•: •.., .::lt•.::: ?,v,:::k 2001 ................. .. :wx0..4}C .}^ }. .... id:•..r ..,, . ,. ..�\ ` ,} :: r.. .., .. SY:fi{ v:�.:.:: J ..... 7. ... v,.•......:..... :... rt ,4 -...�r '• }.: :• } }:: :: . v:•:{+.v: u::. {:},......:�.........:.}C 2002 v ....... r ... : ...� v: :.: .. �•.,: .. � .. .. � {{1� . • .�IFI�i:+.L':. .. ...... ......�ti... .. .., r...:.. n....... r.. .....:..... n.. .::• :v ....::. 2003 ... .. .. , }' {{{ •:t4:YCt{ {{x•.r .,{: :f. .. : •, :... .Y: - � 1Y3�4 .,.. ?. ?'.. r ........ ............ : v: .w:::::,:v:: .................., 2004 ......... ... ... :.•.: •:;•.;.•• t .J. v: ,.,M,iw.:.:, {.{. } ...........:....4$Y.{v.. .. •. ... .:.. •. �, • :',/ � y � `, q . :A�a'i". ,.G� ..............r.. \... ,..........:. .:.v.:t•.v::::.:v::::.:;: 2005 r::... vv: v:: v}}}:t .. f.:.{. J ..} iti•'LLLw:::.:..v; •�. ...... ..i::: .:.{...: liT.�.. . .}... r.i.. . r..:: ..0 {G: ?. :... . ..:::.:rv.4::.......::v:::.v.v. 2006 4YW"•: t41. w• T•}: tG'{ t{ h:L 4: ..G........ v:rF.:. ::•.vv .,......... r.,.,. :{ :: ; .$}f G . - 4 •} $$' .. }:: :,\ v: •- •- ,`.3 : r.w.:. 2007 {•:G:GX'i ?K{i$$.'$ ^$:•. { i v+ :•,,i .,r:}r.. ..i...., •'SV,•Y. . :n•. '::} vr t >, };.r:. :.�, ,'r.{J:. }F:•» }:).��?. +. ..• ::.w. •.{•: 2008 ::4.`•y }$$c.' }'] .. 'y'm :. t.} i }ti:: { } G:.i }R ^ . {•: {• }}: } .. .: }..:• :..{,:.: :r. {r.:r. vt .. :..,,Sv::::: :: v:. v:: :.v........... 2009 ':', } } }wn;:.yv'• }Y• }: } { } }`v }' ? }•. t } }:g:�. :Y••:: r }...::.. 4..........n.: :•:} ................ 2010 $ $ 921 15,000 $ 13,450 $ 16,000 $ $ 27,316 15,000 $ $ 60,764 15,000 $ $ 74,777 15,000 $ $ 99,402 16,000 $ $ 124,642 15,000 $ $ 160,513 15,000 $ $ 177,031 15,000 $ $ 204,212 16,000 Ieginning Cash Balance $ $ 200,086 15,000 'ark Dedication Fees $ $ 10,000 6,000 $ 10,000 $ 6,000 $ $ 10,000 6,000 $ $ 10,000 6,000 $ $ 10,000 6,000 $ $ 10,000 6,000 $ $ 10,000 6,000 $ $ 10,000 6,000 $ $ 10,000 6,000 $ $ 10,000 6,000 3eneral Fund Contribution $ $ 10,000 6,000 Sports Organization Fees $ $ 10,000 1,600 $ 10,000 $ 3,000 $ $ 10,000 3,000 $ $ 10,000 3,000 $ $ 10,000 3,000 $ $ 10,000 3,000 $ $ 10,000 3,000 $ $ 10,000 3,000 $ $ 10,000 3,000 $ $ 10,000 3,000 }ark Foundation $ 10,000 :oncession Sales $ (21,800) $ (21,800) $ (21,800) $ (21,800) $ 121,800) $ (21,800) $ (21,800) $ (21,800) $ (21,800) $ (21,800) nternal Fund (GF) $ 165,000 pyback Loan (GF) 'ransfer from Sewer Fun $ 76,875 AWDOT Funding Closure $ - :apital Outlay Projects nterest Income @ 6.0% $ 1 (482,062) 22.48 $ (81600) 328.04 $ (9,000) 666.24 $ - 1,237.89 $ - 1,823.84 $ 2,424.44 $ - 3,040.05 $ 3,671.05 $ 4,317.83 $ 4,980.77 $ 5,660.29 :ndina Cash Balance 1 $ _ 921 $ 13,460 $ 27,316 $ 50,754 $ 74,777 1 $ 99,402 1 $ 124,642 $ 150,513 $ 177,031 $ 204,212 $ 232,072 Totes: This schedule is based upon zero capital outlay projects years 2005 and 2006 • Freeman Park Multipurpose Building Cost Scenario 4: Building without Canopy Financed 10 years Simple Interest Rate Year Princ 6.0% Net Interest Payback Balance Unpaid Bal Net 2000 $(113,000) 2001 $(116,390) $15,000 2002 $(107,473) $15,000 2003 $ (98,022) $15,000 2004 $ (88,003) $15,000 2005 $ (77,383) $15,000 2006 $ (66,126) $15,000 2007 $ (54,194) $15,000 2008 $ (41,546) $15,000 2009 $ (28,138) $15,000 2010 $ (13,927) $15,000 $(101,390) $ (6,083) $ (92,473) $ (5,548) $ (83,022) $ (4,981) $ (73,003) $ (4,380) $ (62,383) $ (3,743) $ (51,126) $ (3,068) $ (39,194) $ (2,352) $ (26,546) $ (1,593) $ (13,138) $ (788) $ 1,073 $ 64 $(107,473) $ (98,022) $ (88,003) $ (77,383) $ (66,126) $ (54,194) $ (41,546) $ (28,138) $ (13,927) $ 1,138 • Notes: Interest calculated as simple annual interest at assumed rate Interest calculated on one half year period between year 2000 and 2001 due to timing of proje rj • .,.r.y}z :r4'iri ..vv}.n., ": •x•.,•. •:.,, vv:..,•.i: {• n+ .; ..... } } , i r. } n,' tY. Ci:,- i.`,: xtiv]:`,' iCiixav9'.{}; : ^{iL',1L:xx��S•,�'`i.{v. :x :. }x -. 1 : :. :A ...v.......v,.:... n4. rvv..n, J.,v....: n,nv�.{v�x . '•v:. :� i ...{ ,•:.,,..., ,.:.,,.. ,..,..;..,..,,..,,,.:: ;, a ,,..: ,,,..,:.•n+. ,..n,,..,,... ...... r ... ............... . ......:.: :.. ,,, }`: ,. ,:,k•..,,•rx> ,:.., ,,,,v.,a,x•: ,rna,,, •.. ... \,::>.:.,..,,:,,,,•:•t,: :, .• : ,...:..a... \.... iS•..... •, �aYA:,•:: n,:, {:.. ........... ..... .. .. v,. :.....::. :•.. ................ ... ........}. ^.: :}..} ^ ;�';:. :: :.; .. :....::. v'- 'ti,Qi :. ........,,: .T...'..k ... ,� , ':• v r }}:??}\\:}: 4.'.. x :.,x. } :.n„J:t• }' <';x:.; :: v uv.::,,,, „J.x, , �[:{ n n......} Y .C`..:....�:y:• {•, �z:•. } •:� • x,- z:{„{•:, .• i .•. u,�,in,v.,u x }}.::x }�::•.,•',$:......., ..,a „ {. {...: {; { {;::; •.: •�::':xx;. } }}}U } }�,,��.'.. },}}.•m::a. v . } ¢,; • :;ti;:e:x::,��K; «.: .. Gu , w.y};•}•: ,.•�µy;{ .v:.xv {. ,.. �. }:fww:ijvx�a Proj. Description 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 freeman Park a Multipurpose Building $ 343,187 b Sanitary Sewer and Site Restoration $ 76,875 c Parking Lot and Access Closure So $ - Cathcart Park d Purchase Temp Warming House $ 5,000 e Surface Tennis Court $ 3,500 f Permanent Warming House Silverwood Park Surface Tennis Court $ 4,000 Other Bleacher Improvements $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 1 Skate Park $ 7,000 Total Expenditures $ 430,062 $ 8,500 1 $ 9,000 $ - $ - • • ;enario 4: building without canopy -10 years payback 0 0 ^ : ?•:tr }}}};• :•r` } }: }}::• }.' {.yY'o } "•} :•S+ : ,}, ,v } ..,........,..,........,.. ,.:::.,..J.h.:,:: ....:........... .: ..:.... ..... .....A ......... ... ..... i•. .....r .:. v }r..{ ... { ...{ {:.rtiY: :: }w x{.C' 4:1t•i•`. .. •..:Y.Y : .,:?' :, •n+.•Y•:.:£�::.nl:•.lo: •$:'tY }'.:� ?..: /. ..X. :x::{ ?v.:#C:.: ::.h.. ..,. •r. .v.. n,•.:vv.•.•:{ ............. ii .....Y.tr:.} .:..... v ....: F. :..... f .... v... { vvkv:..... n. v. fi...::} •.v •:.n •n }n,;.} :�±,�. v . :.., #t,::• •.,.,,,..Y :,:::.: ..... .... .. .. .:} .�$. : {i :. n. Y v:.K.Y , u.v:: r G�: •. `;C'•. ,.3. Y�;f ;, `r?FF >> �� } \ .. fitn,Y%nv ,. , .. .. Y ... 3 �.....nr r.:....:... n: �}.... 2000 -n .. n , �#i• .,•:::: "tY•.:,, r• .: r , r i , }` ::v v ..•! :.} :r.Y.. :2�[^•.Y'•. a. ::'xN?., . }{ c, >:¢ �#} '$+ '•.` ..} }„- .rf.. Yv trn'v`, n:. ]M <; ....... k.... }:. h:{.....Y.. �n.: Y•..... n.^%:. 2001 .t. , ,h .. n t }x y?}. ":. :,.: ','2:`}'i :•. :r�. ., x: nv ., T},: „{ ., }. "2} {,• #a°•.# :�''tYii7iEY h .K .}: ..,:. ry . w.. of....... o-....f .. nTix:.+L. uv.. �,..,..:... v: n...... 2002 J v+4 %ii•:... A...v' 3::?•.:......} }' .'}Yr.•. t, : . Yj +':£: .. * SS:Y• n .. ...... .n.. n...{T:.: v,.. .:nvk::•j}:.v.A{ {.:.w:nu..}C... 2003 "•:a}: {- {{;:.i{i. ,....,. •{<•r.... j.......... v .. +� , .. .... .. :..: ; ' . .. ? ....... to ....nn::•v,:.. ........ h..:}...:......., 2004 r . • n ...,A .+{' .r... . k.. r. ; {` ?�} .� #� -. •r• - :. } ,"•.r rr.,., n...i v... YA .:........ 2005 "?t- :; {{ao �'t.;c.;..•.;u .. F•} .i3:� - n.,v}.tr' : {... 3. r:•.�ru}Yr{� .. Y•.. .:{ -•'} •'•�: r{:.3r �} : r oo m= , . , , #}. 2006 ;. } . tiy , x rr. v {{r ?• i:?{" {:` Y,•.::•.t,.:r.•#..f: . } .. .: : \•} .. n . ? , } . , 3 .{.....•� A. 3,{•.v . } > . >� .. ?..•+. } •. r f..b.Y.: ?v j v:.Y:•. .v.tv. .v 2007 y� .#3 }+. uY ...., v.•:#ji ' '^#fi Y•. `Y }•,•}: r.?� j� - @hv .`v:t' ..J v.,� �,.5� y�•,� A^x;::`.•'RY >� '•.•. • }.•.•.• x. /.x .::.{ {:.Y,v;,Y, {Y:3::. 2008 Yom• {Y }\: ' r {4 i' Sti^}? j: {;:•:6; #: ?yv •or 'x;';r;Yr :,n {. :r :.4.r ::}•::�" { . •Y, .; :•r r ,'•} } }.h ..v h`vv'.Y.i`Y`}n.� ; n: r t'v :i:N,y y Y}• 2009 "•� J,.3r••Y;{ipif•:ti' : •. r,. t, {YC:••:. ti••v • }S" }:' Y yy�� :'y + {. }. •, y Yn {ti�.,y, } {•YAX.: yij<} .:,:8 2010 aginning Cash Balance $ 200,086 $ 921 $ 20,420 $ 41,430 S 72,191 $ 103,721 $ 136,039 $ 169,164 $ 203,119 $ 237,922 $ 273,595 irk Dedication Fees $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 16,000 $ 16,000 $ 16,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 16,000 eneral Fund Contribution $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 ports Organization Fees $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 irk Foundation $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 oncession Sales $ 1,500 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 ternal Fund (GF) $ 113,000 3yback Loan (GF) $ (15,000) $ (15,000) $ (16,000) $ (15,000) $ (15,000) $ (15,000) $ (15,000) $ (15,000) $ (15,000) $ (15,000) •ansfer from Sewer Fun $ 76,876 NDOT Funding Closure S - 3pital Outlay Projects $ (430,062) $ (8,500) $ (9,000) $ - $ $ _ $ _ $ _ $ - $ $ terest Income @ 5.0% 22.48 498.04 1,010.49 1,760.75 2,529.77 3,318.01 4,126.96 4,954.11 5,802.97 6,673.04 7,564.87 iding Cash Balance $ 921 $ 20,420 $ 41,430 $ 72,191 $ 103,721 $ 136,039 $ 169,164 $ 203,119 $ 237,922 $ 273,695 1 $ 310,159 )tes: 'his schedule is based upon zero capital outlay projects years 2005 and 2006