The URL can be used to link to this page

01-29-15 CC Staff Retreat City of Shorewood City Council - Staff Retreat 8:00 AM Thursday, January 29, 2015 South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Facility 24150 Smithtown Rd Emergency Operating Center, Training Room, Building Basement 8:00 AM Continental Breakfast Available 8:30 AM 1. Call to Order / Retreat Objectives 2. Review of City Finances 3. Issues Related to Police and Fire JPAs 4. Staffing, Succession Planning 5. MS4 and Forestry Issues and Staffing 6. Road Reconstruction Financing Options 7. Southshore Center 8. Minnetonka Country Club 9. Future Trail Projects Timing and Financing 10. Other Issues 11. Adjourn Note: Lunch will be provided. A lunch break will be taken at a time determined at the meeting. Item #2 Review of City Finance _______ Additional material will be provided at the meeting City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Title % Subject: Financial Management Plan Review Meeting Date: January 29, 2015 Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director Reviewed by: Bill Joynes, City Administrator Larry Brown, Director of Public Works Paul Hornby, City Engineer Attachments: Financial Management Plan MEETING TYPE Council — Staff Retreat Policy Consideration: How should the City pay for all the services and projects included in the Capital Improvement Plan and activity budgets? Background: The City has since 2011 prepared a Financial Management Plan that covers all operating funds of the city. This shows how revenues and expenditures are tracking in each fund and helps to identify where additional resources may be needed to accomplish City Council goals. General Fund: The General Fund is budgeted at a small deficit that anticipates a reduction in the fund balance each year. This recognizes that we budget conservatively meaning there is a reasonable likelihood that revenues will come in higher than budgeted and expenditures will be lower. Because of the design of the spreadsheet it shows fund' balance going down each year until 2023 when the public safety building bonds are paid off. Staff does not expect a reduction in fund balance each year despite how the model projects the cash. We have continued that process for the 2015 budget. The anticipation is that we will reduce the fund balance into the policy parameters of 55 -60% at some point in the next few years either through annual deficits or by transfers out to other funds. South Shore Center: The South Shore Center is basically balanced with the $70,000 transfers that are anticipated each year. We will have to make some minor adjustments on an annual basis, but those are very manageable. Debt Service: The City Hall remodeling bonds are not paid off until 2028. This sheet shows the annual amount of cost for the principal and interest. Park Improvement: The Park Improvement fund still has a challenge with the full reconstruction of Badger Park. There is a funding gap that reaches a maximum deficit of about $ 665,000 in 2020. This is primarily due to the cost of construction for phase 2 of the park and Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 playground area. This is what remains after accounting for an estimated $500,000 in park dedication fees with the platting of the Minnetonka Country Club property. City Council needs to further discuss the financing options if we want to fully reconstruct the park. Equipment Replacement: This fund covers its costs through the next 10 year period by increasing the transfer amount by an additional $15,000 to a total of $105,000 annually starting in 2016. This was accomplished by moving some equipment purchases out to the Water and Sewer enterprise funds since they are primarily used in those functions. Street Maintenance: This fund will have a separate discussion. Please see the packet item for a full discussion of the issues. MSA: This fund has some cash remaining from previous projects. We anticipate this cash will be transferred to help fund the trail costs. It also shows an estimate of the amount of annual allocation that we receive. Of the total allocation, 25% or just over $70,000 is taken into the general fund for street maintenance activities. The remaining 75% or about $220,000 is available for construction projects on MSA streets. The amount of our allocation goes down as new cities qualify for the fund when they go over 5,000 population and new streets are constructed in growing cities. Trail Construction: This fund will have a separate discussion. Please see the packet item for a full discussion of the issues. Community Infrastructure Fund: This fund will be closed out in 2016. It will cover the cost of the consultants for the Renewable Energy project in 2015. Water Fund: This fund continues to be well financed. Some funds may be available for transfer or loan to cover costs for trails or other projects. Sewer: This fund reflects the recommendations from the Ehlers rate study to stabilize its cash balance while providing a source of funding for Storm Sewer projects. Recycling: This fund is projected to have a significant surplus during the next year. This is due to the new collection contract which has a significant rate reduction due to the elimination of the recycle bank program. Staff will bring back a rate study analysis at a council work session in March to review options for rate setting. Storm Water: This fund operates on a break even basis from a profit and loss view. However, there are significant capital expenditures that need to be financed. The Ehlers utility rate study anticipated some loans from the Sewer fund that will be repaid, but the rate study needs to be revisited because new projects have been added that were not anticipated. The rate study was designed to balance the cash needs over a ten year period. Staff plans to bring back a revised .rate analysis to March work session. Fund Balance Summary: This sheet shows the effect of the changes in each separate fund. The cash goes down significantly — dropping $3,245,000 over the ten year period. This assumes that no additional financing sources are identified for the critical funds such as Parks, Streets, and Storm Water. The City Council does have the ability to transfer cash balances between funds as need. There are also other significant sources of funding available such as bonding, assessments, and increased tax levies above the 2% amount needed to keep up with current inflation. There is also a possibility of financing sources like Tax Increment Financing (TIF) or tax abatement to be used in conjunction with the redevelopment of the Minnetonka Country Club property. None of the issues discussed here are too big to solve. We have great cash balances and plenty of time to put effective strategies in place to deal with any projects currently contemplated. City of Shorewood January 23, 0 General Fund - All operations of the city not restricted by legal authority or good accounting practice Expenditures General Government: City Council Personal Services 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% Supplies 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Services & Other Charges Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Revenues: 70,000 71,400 72,828 74,285 75,770 77,286 78,831 80,408 82,016 83,656 Property Taxes 4,931,464 5,030,090 5,130,690 5,233,300 5,337,970 5,444,730 5,553,620 5,664,690 5,777,980 5,893,540 New Prop Tax Required Licenses and Permits 147,770 150,730 153,740 156,810 159,950 163,150 166,410 169,740 173,130 176,590 Intergovernmental 87,251 89,000 90,780 92,600 94,450 96,340 98,270 100,240 102,240 104,280 Charges for Services 42,200 43,040 43,900 44,780 45,680 46,590 47,520 48,470 49,440 50,430 Fines, Forfeits, and Penalties 57,000 58,140 59,300 60,490 61,700 62,930 64,190 65,470 66,780 68,120 Investment Earnings 35,000 35,700 36,410 37,140 37,880 38,640 39,410 40,200 41,000 41,820 Miscellaneous Revenue 175,400 178,910 182,490 186,140 189,860 193,660 197,530 201,480 205,510 209,620 Transfers In 25,000 25,500 26,010 26,530 27,060 27,600 28,150 28,710 29,280 29,870 Services & Other Charges 16,000 16,320 16,646 16,979 17,319 17,665 18,019 18,379 Total Revenues 5,501,085 5,611,110 5,723,320 5,837,790 5,954,550 6,073,640 6,195,100 6,319,000 6,445,360 6,574,270 188,412 192,180 Professional Services 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 242,192 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% Expenditures General Government: City Council Personal Services 22,600 23,052 23,513 23,983 24,463 24,952 25,451 25,960 26,480 27,009 Supplies 2,000 2,040 2,081 2,122 2,165 2,208 2,252 2,297 2,343 2,390 Services & Other Charges 110,350 112,557 114,808 117,104 119,446 121,835 124,272 126,757 129,293 131,878 Transfers 70,000 71,400 72,828 74,285 75,770 77,286 78,831 80,408 82,016 83,656 Total City Council 204,950 209,049 213,230 217,495 221,844 226,281 230,807 235,423 240,132 244,934 City Administration Personal Services 251,153 256,176 261,300 266,526 271,856 277,293 282,839 288,496 294,266 300,151 Supplies 20,900 21,318 21,744 22,179 22,623 23,075 23,537 24,008 24,488 24,977 Services & Other Charges 145,500 148,410 151,378 154,406 157,494 160,644 163,857 167,134 170,476 173,886 Total City Administration 417,553 425,904 434,422 443,111 451,973 461,012 470,232 479,637 489,230 499,014 Finance Personal Services 134,758 137,453 140,202 143,006 145,866 148,784 151,759 154,795 157,890 161,048 Supplies 10,050 10,251 10,456 10,665 10,878 11,096 11,318 11,544 11,775 12,011 Services & Other Charges 16,000 16,320 16,646 16,979 17,319 17,665 18,019 18,379 18,747 19,121 Total Finance 160,808 164,024 167,305 170,651 174,064 177,545 181,096 184,718 188,412 192,180 Professional Services Services & Other Charges 215,060 219,361 223,748 228,223 232,788 237,444 242,192 247,036 251,977 257,017 Total Professional Services 215,060 219,361 223,748 228,223 232,788 237,444 242,192 247,036 251,977 257,017 Planning Personal Services 173,157 176,620 180,153 183,756 187,431 191,179 195,003 198,903 202;881 206,939 Supplies 300 306 312 318 325 331 338 345 351 359 Services & Other Charges 11,000 11,220 11,444 11,673 11,907 12,145 12,388 12,636 12,888 13,146 Total Planning 184,457 188,146 191,909 195,747 199,662 203,655 207,729 211,883 216,121 220,443 Page 1 Page 2 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Municipal Buildings Supplies 23,400 23,868 24,345 24,832 25,329 25,835 26,352 26,879 27,417 27,965 Services & Other Charges 170,800 174,216 177,700 181,254 184,879 188,577 192,349 196,196 200,119 204,122 City Hall Debt Service Transfers 101,513 104,313 101,913 99,393 101,873 104,045 101,000 102,850 99,475 101,025 Total Municipal Buildings 295,713 302,397 303,958 305,479 312,081 318,457 319,701 325,925 327,011 333,112 Total General Government 1,478,541 1,508,881 1,534,572 1,560,706 1,592,412 1,624,395 1,651,757 1,684,622 1,712,883 1,746,701 Public Safety: Police Contractual 1,072,645 1,094,098 1,115,980 1,138,299 1,161, 065 1,184,287 1,207,972 1,232,132 1,256,775 1,281,910 Police Capital Outlay 225,181 235,000 235,000 235,000 235,000 235,000 235,000 235,000 Total Police 1,297,826 1,329,098 1,350,980 1,373,299 1,396,065 1,419,287 1,442,972 1,467,132 1,256,775 1,281,910 Fire Contractual 361,315 368,541 375,912 383,430 391,099 398,921 406,899 415,037 423,338 431,805 Fire Capital Outlay 276,156 290,000 290,000 290,000 290,000 290,000 290,000 290,000 Total Fire 637,471 658,541 665,912 673,430 681,099 688,921 696,899 705,037 423,338 431,805 Protective Inspections Personal Services 121,323 123,749 126,224 128,749 131,324 133,950 136,629 139,362 142,149 144,992 Supplies 200 204 208 212 216 221 225 230 234 239 Services & Other Charges 7,700 7,854 8,011 8,171 8,335 8,501 8,671 8,845 9,022 9,202 Total Protective Inspections 129,223 131,807 134,444 137,132 139,875 142,673 145,526 148,437 151,405 154,433 Total Public Safety 2,064,520 2,119,447 2,151,336 2,183,862 2,217,040 2,250,880 2,285,398 2,320,606 1,831,518 1,868,148 Public Works: City Engineer Personal Services - - - - - - - - - - Supplies - - - - - - - - - - Services & Other Charges 87,900 89,658 91,451 93,280 95,146 97,049 98,990 100,969 102,989 105,049 Total City Engineer 87,900 89,658 91,451 93,280 95,146 97,049 98,990 100,969 102,989 105,049 Public Work Service Personal Services 494,547 504,438 514,527 524,817 535,314 546,020 556,940 568,079 579,441 591,029 Supplies 167,700 171,054 174,475 177,965 181,524 185,154 188,857 192,635 196,487 200,417 Services & Other Charges 142,600 145,452 148,361 151,328 154,355 157,442 160,591 163,803 167,079 170,420 Equipment Replacement Transfers 90,000 91,800 93,636 95,509 97,419 99,367 101,355 103,382 105,449 107,558 Pavement Management Transfers 740,000 754,800 769,896 785,294 801,000 817,020 833,360 850,027 867,028 884,369 Total Public Work Service 1,634,847 1,667,544 1,700,895 1,734,913 1,769,611 1,805,003 1,841,103 1,877,925 1,915,484 1,953,794 Snow & Ice Removal Personal Services 58,339 59,506 607696 61,910 63,148 64,411 65,699 67,013 68,353 69,721 Supplies 45,000 45,900 46,818 47,754 48,709 49,684 50,677 51,691 52,725 53,779 Total Snow & Ice Removal 103,339 105,406 107,514 109,664 111,857 114,095 116,376 118,704 121,078 123,500 Traffic Control /Street Lights Total Public Works 1,826,086 1,862,608 1,899,860 1,937,857 1,976,614 2,016,146 2,056,469 2,097,599 2,139,551 2,182,342 Parks Maintenance Personal Services 109,473 111,662 113,896 116,174 118,497 120,867 123,284 125,750 128,265 130,830 Supplies 23,300 23,766 24,241 24,726 25,221 25,725 26,240 26,764 27,300 27,846 Services & Other Charges 38,000 38,760 39,535 40,326 41,132 41,955 42,794 43,650 44,523 45,414 Total Parks & Recreation 170,773 174,188 177,672 181,226 184,850 188,547 192,318 196,164 200,088 204,090 Recreation Personal Services 36,743 37,478 38,227 38,992 39,772 40,567 41,379 42,206 43,050 43,911 Supplies 5,800 5,916 6,034 6,155 6,278 6,404 6,532 6,662 6,796 6,932 Services & Other Charges 18,800 19,176 19,560 19,951 20,350 20,757 21,172 21,595 22,027 22,468 Park Improvement Transfers 42,000 42,840 43,697 44,571 45,462 46,371 47,299 48,245 49,210 50,194 Total Parks & Recreation 103,343 105,410 107,518 109,668 111,862 114,099 116,381 118,709 121,083 123,504 Total Parks & Recreation 274,116 279,598 285,190 290,894 296,712 302,646 308,699 314,873 321,171 327,594 Total General Fund Expenditures 5,643,263 5,770,534 5,870,958 5,973,319 6,082,778 6,194,068 6,302,324 6,417,700 6,005,122 6,124,785 Page 2 Total Transfers Out Rev Over (Under) & Use of Fund Balance Fund Balance BOY Fund Balance EOY 55% Target Fund Balance Fund Balance above /(below) target OSA Fund Balance (excl Cap Out & Xfers) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected 1,043,513 1,065,153 1,081,969 1,099,050 1,121,524 1,144,089 1,161,845 1,184,912 1,203,178 1,226,802 (142,178) (159,424) (147,638) (135,529) (128,228) (120,428) (107,224) (98,700) 440,238 449,485 3,852,397 3,710,220 3,550,796 3,403,158 3,267,628 3,139,401 3,018,973 2,911,749 2,813,049 3,253,287 3,710,220 3,550,796 3,403,158 3,267,628 3,139,401 3,018,973 2,911,749 2,813,049 3,253,281 3,/0'2,//1 (3,173,794) (3,229,027) (3,285,326) (3,345,528) (3,406,738) (3,466,278) (3,529,735) (3,302,817) (3,368,632) - 536,426 321,769 117,832 (77,899) (267,337) (447,305) (617,986) (489,768) (115,345) 3,702,771 64.3% 60.5% 57.0% 53.7% 50.7% 47.9% 45.4% 46.8% 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Expenditures 5,643,263 5,770,534 5,870,958 5,973,319 6,082,778 6,194,068 6,302,324 6,417,700 6,005,122 6,124,785 Fund Balance 3,710,220 3,550,796 3,403,158 3,267,628 3,139,401 3,018,973 2,911,749 2,813,049 3,253,287 3,702,771 55% Target 3,173,794 3,229,027 3,285,326 3,345,528 3,406,738 3,466,278 3,529,735 3,302,817 3,368,632 - Page 3 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 ` 4,000,000 m Expenditures Fund Balance 3,000,000 559v(; Target 2,000,000 r 1,000,000 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 i Financial Management Plan January 23, 2015 South Shore Community Center Fund - this fund covers the cost of operations at the SSCC 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 REVENUES 1,000 1,000 Miscellaneous Revenue 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 Beginning Balance 469 901 (1,208) (5,910) (13,255) (23,298) (36,091) (51,691) (70,152) (91,532) REVENUES Charges for Services 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 Interest Income - - - - - - - - - - Contributions /Donations 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Miscellaneous Revenue 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 Transfers In 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 TOTAL REVENUES 127,500 127,500 127,500 127,500 127,500 127,500 127,500 127,500 127,500 127,500 EXPENDITURES 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% Culture & Recreation 127,068 129,609 132,202 134,846 137,542 140,293 143,099 145,961 148,880 151,858 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 127,068 129,609 132,202 134,846 137,542 140,293 143,099 145,961 148,880 151,858 CAPITAL OUTLAY Building & Structures TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY TOTAL EXPENDITURES 127,068 129,609 132,202 134,846 137,542 140,293 143,099 145,961 148,880 151,858 Revenues over /(under) 432 (2,109) (4,702) (7,346) (10,042) (12,793) (15,599) (18,461) (21,380) (24,358) Ending Fund Balance 901 (1,208) (5,910) (13,255) (23,298) (36,091) (51,691) (70,152) (91,532) (115,890) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Expenditures 127,068 129,609 132,202 134,846 137,542 140,293 143,099 145,961 148,880 151,858 Fund Balance 901 (1,208) (5,910) (13,255) (23,298) (36,091) (51,691) (70,152) (91,532) (115,890) Page 4 City of • •,fa Financial Management January 23, 1 - •, • . ff mrsimrpla-T s 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated City Hall Lease 2008A 100,450 103,575 101,513 104,313 101,913 99,393 101,873 104,045 101,000 102,850 99,475 101,025 Total Debt Service 100,450 103,575 101,513 104,313 101,913 99,393 101,873 104,045 101,000 102,850 99,475 101,025 Page 5 City of Shorewood Financial Management Plan January 23, 2015 Park Improvement Fund - This fund covers capital expenditures for the improvement of park facilities CAPITAL OUTLAY Machinery and Equipment - - - - - - - - - - Other Improvements 41,000 692,000 860,000 206,000 19,000 128,900 9,500 3,000 - 23,000 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 41,000 692,000 860,000 206,000 19,000 128,900 9,500 3,000 - 23,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 41,000 692,000 860,000 206,000 19,000 128,900 9,500 3,000 - 23,000 Revenue - Over /(under) 3,700 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Ending Fund Balance Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected REVENUES 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Beginning Fund Balance 530,289 533,989 386,689 (429,411) (595,511) (575,511) (665,311) (636,111) (600,311) (561,311) Park Dedication Fees - 500,000 - - - - - - - - Interest Earnings' 2,700 2,700 1,900 (2,100) (3,000) (2,900) (3,300) (3;200) (3,000) (2,800) Concession Sales - - - - - - - - Grants - - - - - - - - - - Transfers in 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 TOTAL REVENUES 44,700 544,700 43,900 39,900 39,000 39,100 38,700 38,800 39,000 39,200 EXPENDITURES OTHER SERVICES Contractrual Services - - - - - - - - - - Miscellaneous Charges - - - - - - - - - - TOTAL OTHER SERVICES - - - - - - - - - - CAPITAL OUTLAY Machinery and Equipment - - - - - - - - - - Other Improvements 41,000 692,000 860,000 206,000 19,000 128,900 9,500 3,000 - 23,000 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 41,000 692,000 860,000 206,000 19,000 128,900 9,500 3,000 - 23,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 41,000 692,000 860,000 206,000 19,000 128,900 9,500 3,000 - 23,000 Revenue - Over /(under) 3,700 (147,300) (816,100) (166,100) 20,000 (89,800) 29,200 35,800 39,000 16,200 Ending Fund Balance 533,989 386,689 (429,411) (595,511) (575,511) (665,311) (636,111) (600,311) (561,311) (545,111) Note: * Interest projected at 0.5% of fund balance 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Expenditures 41,000 692,000 860,000 206,000 19,000 128,900 9,500 3,000 Fund Balance 533,989 386,689 (429,411) (595,511) (575,511) (665,311) (636,111) (600,311) Page 6 2023 2024 - 23,000 (561,311) (545,111) REVENUES Beginning Balance Interest Earnings Miscellaneous Income Sale of Old Equipment Transfers in TOTAL REVENUES EXPENDITURES OTHER SERVICES Engineering Fees Contractual Services Miscellaneous Services Bank Charges TOTAL OTHER SERVICES CAPITAL OUTLAY Machinery and Equipment Fire SCBA Purchase TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY Transfers Out TOTAL EXPENDITURES Revenue over /(under) Ending Fund Balance Expenditures Fund Balance 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 402,002 236,502 150,702 197,502 195,002 248,002 249,202 231,402 322,602 169,202 2,000 1,200 800 1,000 1,000 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,600 800 90,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 92,000 106,200 105,800 106,000 106,000 106,200 106,200 106,200 106,600 105,800 257,500 192,000 59,000 108,500 53,000 105,000 124,000 15,000 260,000 99,500 257,500 192,000 59,000 108,500 53,000 105,000 124,000 15,000 260,000 99,500 257,500 192,000 59,000 108,500 53,000 105,000 124,000 15,000 260,000 99,500 (165,500) (85,800) 46,800 (2,500) 53,000 1,200 (17,800) 91,200 # # # # # ## 6,300 175,502 236,502 150,702 197,502 195,002 248,002 249,202 231,402 322,602 169,202 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 257,500 192,000 59,000 108,500 53,000 105,000 124,000 15,000 260,000 99,500 236,502 150,702 197,502 195,002 248,002 249,202 231,402 322,602 169,202 175,502 Page 7 City of Shorewood Financial Management Plan January 23, 2015 Street Maintenance Fund - This fund covers expenditures related to street reconstruction and sealcoating 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected REVENUES 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Beginning Balance 1,301,164 921,964 587,364 40,764 36,164 (1,136,736) (1,396,836) (2,084,536) (1,742,936) (2,289,936) MSA Maintenance Money Interest Earnings 6,500 4,600 2,900 200 200 (5,700) (7,000) (10,400) (8,700) (11,400) Transfers in 740,000 755,000 770,000 785,000 800,000 815,000 830,000 845,000 860,000 875,000 Total Revenue 746,500 759,600 772,900 785,200 800,200 809,300 823,000 834,600 851,300 863,600 EXPENDITURES CAPITAL OUTLAY Other Improvements 1,125,700 1,094,200 1,319,500 789,800 1,973,100 1,069,400 1,510,700 493,000 1,398,300 597,600 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,125,700 1,094,200 1,319,500 789,800 1,973,100 1,069,400 1,510,700 493,000 1,398,300 597,600 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,125,700 1,094,200 1,319,500 789,800 1,973,100 1,069,400 1,510,700 493,000 1,398,300 597,601 Revenue over/(under) (379,200) (334,600) (546,600) (4,600) (1,172,900) (260,100) (687,700) 341,600 (547,000) 265,999 Ending Fund Balance 921,964 587,364 40,764 36,164 (1,136,736) (1,396,836) (2,084,536) (1,742,936) (2,289,936) (2,023,937) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Expenditures 1,125,700 1,094,200 1,319,500 789,800 1,973,100 1,069,400 1,510,700 493,000 1,398,300 597,601 Fund Balance 921,964 587,364 40,764 36,164 (1,136,736) (1,396,836) (2,084,536) (1,742,936) (2,289,936) (2,023,937) Page 8 City of Shorewood Financial Management Plan January 23, 2015 MSA Street Construction Fund - This fund covers expenditures related to MSA street reconstruction 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 200.0% 300.0% Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected REVENUES 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021 2022 2023 2024 Beginning Balance 127,701 119,701 - - - - - - - - - MSA Construction Allocation Interest Earnings Transfers in Total Revenue EXPENDITURES MATERIALS & SUPPLIES Contractual Services Taxes /License Miscellaneous Services Bank Charges TOTAL OTHER SERVICES CAPITAL OUTLAY Other Improvements TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY TOTAL EXPENDITURES Revenue over /(under) Ending Fund Balance Annual Allocation 25% goes to Estimated amount MSA may go down as new cities and roads qualify. 8,000 119,701 - - - - - - - - - 8,000 119,701 - - - - - - - - 8,000 119,701 - - - - - - - - (8,000) (119,701) - - - - - - - - - 119,701 - - - - - - - - - - 287,596 285,596 283,596 281,596 279,596 277,596 275,596 273,596 271,596 269,596 267,596 *.75 *.76 *.77 *.78 *.79 *.80 *.81 *.82 *.83 *.84 *.85 215697 214197 212697 211197 209697 208197 206697 205197 203697 202197 200697 -2000 -2000 -2000 -2000 -2000 -2000 -2000 -2000 -2000 -2000 -2000 Page 9 City of • ••d Financial Management January 23, 1 Trail Construction Fund - This fund covers expenditures related to local trails Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected REVENUES 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Beginning Balance 519,824 (904,479) (570,581) (184,877) 26,320 (615,983) (407,786) (201,089) - - Interest Earnings M SA Grants Transfers in from MSA - 405 Transfers in from Sewer - 611 Transfers in from Comm Infr Fund - 450 Total Revenue 10/J]►167i fill] X.� CAPITAL OUTLAY Other Improvements TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 215,697 333,898 212,697 211,197 209,697 208,197 206,697 201,089 1,330,000 - - 173,007 - - - - - - 215,697 1,663,898 385,704 211,197 209,697 208,197 206,697 201,089 - 1,640,000 1,330,000 - 852,000 - - - - - 11640,000 1,330,000 - - 852,000 - - - - - TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,640,000 1,330,000 - - 852,000 - - - - - Revenue over /(under) (1,424,303) 333,898 385,704 211,197 (642,303) 208,197 206,697 201,089 - - Ending Fund Balance (904,479) (570,581) (184,877) 26,320 (615,983) (407,786) (201,089) - - - c; C 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Expenditures 1,640,000 1,330,000 - - 852,000 - - - - - Fund Balance (904,479) (570,581) (184,877) 26,320 (615,983) (407,786) (201,089) - - - Page 10 2,000,000 1,500,000 rc I 11000,000 a _.- _ .. ._ 500,000 01 z W Expenditures Fund Balance ! 0a0 ` cis N m ct c; C a o" 0 0 0 0 (500,000)... (1,000,000) _.... Page 11 Actual Estimated Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected REVENUES 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Beginning Balance 1,692,262 219,907 221,007 172,107 - - - Interest Earnings 7,194 1,100 1,100 900 - - - Miscellaneous Income - - - - - - - Transfers in - - - - - - - Total Revenues 7,194 1,100 1,100 900 - - - EXPENDITURES OTHER SERVICES - - - - - - - Engineering Fees - - - - - - - Contractual Services - - 50,000 - - - - Miscellaneous Services - - - - - - - Bank Charges - - - - - - - TOTAL OTHER SERVICES - - 50,000 - - - - CAPITAL OUTLAY Machinery and Equipment - - - - - - - Other Improvements 3,549 - - - - - - TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 3,549 - - - - - - Transfers out 1,476,000 - - - - - - Operating Transfers - - - 173,007 - - - Total 1,476,000 - - 173,007 - - - TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,479,549 - 50,000 173,007 - - - Revenue over /(under) (1,472,355) 1,100 (48,900) (172,107) - - - Ending Cash Balance 219,907 221,007 172,107 - - - - Page 11 City of Shorewood Financial Management Plan January 23, 2015 Water Utility Fund - This fund is to be used for all water services 0.0% 0.0% Budget Budget 2015 2016 0.0% 0.0% Budget Budget 2017 2018 0.0% Budget 2019 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Budget Budget Budget 2020 2021 2022 0.0% 0.0% Budget Budget 2023 2024 REVENUES 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% # # ## Water Sales 600,000 630,000 630,000 630,000 630,000 630,000 630,000 630,000 630,000 630,000 # # ## Special Assessments 35,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 # # ## Permits & Connection Fees 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 # # ## Interest Earnings 25,000 28,380 28,920 29,660 30,390 31,050 31,630 32,160 32,610 33,000 # # ## Water Meter Sales 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 # # ## Antennae Space Rental 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Revenues 687,500 700,880 701,420 702,160 702,890 703,550 704,130 704,660 705,110 705,500 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% EXPENSES 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% Personal Services 101 Regular Salaries 79,796 81,392 83,020 84,680 86,374 88,101 89,863 91,661 93,494 95,364 102 O.T. Salaries 3,000 3,060 3,121 3,184 3,247 3,312 3,378 3,446 3,515 3,585 121 PERA City Share 6,003 6,123 6,246 6,370 6,498 6,628 6,760 6,896 7,033 7,174 122 FICA City Share 6,334 6,461 6,590 6,722 6,856 6,993 7,133 7,276 7,421 7,570 131 Ins. City Share 12,726 12,981 13,240 13,505 13,775 14,051 14,332 14,618 14,911 15,209 Total: Personal Services 107,859 110,016 112,217 114,461 116,750 119,085 121,467 123,896 126,374 128,901 Supplies 200 Office Supplies - - - - - - - - - - 208 Postage 1,400 1,428 1,457 1,486 1,515 1,546 1,577 1,608 1,640 1,673 212 Motor Fuel & Lube - - - - - - - - - - 221 Maint- Equipment 6,500 6,630 6,763 6,898 7,036 7,177 7,320 7,466 7,616 7,768 223 Maint - Buildings 1,000 1,020 1,040 1,061 1,082 1,104 1,126 1,149 1,172 1,195 240 Small Tools 600 612 624 637 649 662 676 689 703 717 245 General Supplies 12,000 12,240 12,485 12,734 12,989 13,249 13,514 13,784 14,060 14,341 260 Wtr Purch - Tonka Bay 3,500 3,570 3,641 3,714 3,789 3,864 3,942 4,020 4,101 4,183 261 Wtr Purch - Excelsior 22,000 22,440 22,889 23,347 23,814 24,290 24,776 25,271 25,777 26,292 262 Wtr Purch - Mtka 1,500 1,530 1,561 1,592 1,624 1,656 1,689 1,723 1,757 1,793 263 Wtr Purch - Chan 16,000 16,320 16,646 16,979 17,319 17,665 18,019 18,379 18,747 19,121 265 Water Meters 15,000 15,300 15,606 15,918 16,236 16,561 16,892 17,230 17,575 17,926 Total Supplies 79,500 81,090 82,712 84,366 86,053 87,774 89,530 91,321 93,147 95,010 Other Services & Charges 301 Financial & Audit 2,500 2,550 2,601 2,653 2,706 2,760 2,815 2,872 2,929 2,988 302 Consulting 5,000 5,100 5,202 5,306 5,412 5,520 5,631 5,743 5,858 5,975 321 Communication 2,800 2,856 2,913 2,971 3,031 3,091 3,153 3,216 3,281 3,346 331 Travel, Conf,Sch 800 816 832 849 866 883 901 919 937 956 351 Print /Publish 1,100 1,122 1,144 1,167 1,191 1,214 1,239 1,264 1,289 1,315 360 Insurance -Total 8,000 8,160 8,323 8,490 8,659 8,833 9,009 9,189 9,373 9,561 394 Utilities - Amesbury 12,000 12,240 12,485 12,734 12,989 13,249 13,514 13,784 14,060 14,341 395 Utilities - Badger 12,500 12,750 13,005 13,265 13,530 13,801 14,077 14,359 14,646 14,939 396 Utilities - Boulder Bridge 20,000 20,400 20,808 21,224 21,649 22,082 22,523 22,974 23,433 23,902 397 Utilities - Woodhaven - - - - - - - - - 398 Utilities - SE Area /Tower 34,000 34,680 35,374 36,081 36,803 37,539 38,290 39,055 39,836 40,633 Page 12 Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 400 Contractual 30,000 30,600 31,212 31,836 32,473 33,122 33,/88 34,4b1 3S,lbu 3J,255s 410 Rental - - - - - - - 580 Other Improve 580,000 433 Subscrip- Member - - - - - - - - - - 437 Licenses -Sales Taxes 3,000 3,060 3,121 3,184 3,247 3,312 3,378 3,446 3,515 3,585 440 Misc. Services 200 204 208 212 216 221 225 230 234 239 450 Bank Svc Chgs 1,000 1,020 1,040 1,061 1,082 1,104 1,126 1,149 1,172 1,195 38,629 Total Other Services & Charges 132,900 135,558 138,269 141,035 143,855 146,732 149,667 152,660 155,714 158,828 Capital Outlay 540 Machinery -Equip 204,000 27,000 - - - - 580 Other Improve 580,000 - - - - Total Capital Outlay 784,000 27,000 - - - - - - - - Debt Service 601 Bond Principal 195,000 205,000 215,000 220,000 230,000 240,000 240,000 240,000 240,000 240,000 611 Bond Interest 81,555 73,808 65,595 57,010 48,050 38,629 38,629 38,629 38,629 38,629 620 Fiscal Agent Fees 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 Total Debt Service 278,055 280,308 282,095 277,010 278,050 278,629 278,629 278,629 278,629 278,629 Total Transfers 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 673,868 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,394,814 646,472 627,792 629,371 637,209 644,721 651,792 659,006 666,363 REVENUES OVER /(UNDER) EXPENDITURES (707,314) 54,408 73,628 72,789 65,681 58,829 52,338 45,654 38,747 31,632 Beginning Cash Balance 3,545,389 2,838,075 2,892,483 2,966,111 3,038,899 3,104,581 3,163,410 3,215,748 3,261,402 3,300,149 Ending Cash Balance 2,838,075 2,892,483 2,966,111 3,038,899 3,104,581 3,163,410 3,215,748 3,261,402 3,300,149 3,331,781 707,314 (54,408) (73,628) (72,789) (65,681) (58,829) (52,338) (45,654) (38,747) (31,632) - (0) (0) 0 0 - - (0) (0) 0 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Expenditures 1,394,814 646,472 627,792 629,371 637,209 644,721 651,792 659,006 666,363 673,868 Cash Balance 2,838,075 2,892,483 2,966,111 3,038,899 3,104,581 3,163,410 3,215,748 3,261,402 3,300,149 3,331,781 Page 13 City of Shorewood Financial Management Plan January 23, 2015 Sewer Utility Fund - This fund is to be used for all provisions of sewer services Total Revenues 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 % 0.0% 100.0% Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget EXPENSES 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 REVENUES Personal Services 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 33635 MCES I & I Grant - - - - - - - - - - 36210 interest Earnings 23,220 21,200 14,970 13,610 13,870 14,150 14,450 14,790 15,160 15,560 36240 Refunds /Reimburse 3,167 3,262 3,360 121 PERA City Share 5,353 5,513 5,679 5,849 6,025 37250 Metro Sac Charges 6,392 6,583 6,781 6,984 122 FICA City Share 5,649 5,818 5,993 6,172 37210 Sewer Sery Charges 860,000 886,000 912,500 940,000 968,000 997,000 1,027,000 1,058,000 1,089,500 1,089,500 37220 Sewer Chg -Cnty Coll 12,505 12,880 13,267 13,665 14,075 14,497 Total Personal Services 95,949 98,827 37250 Local SAC Charges - - - - - - - - - - 37270 Sewer Permits 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 39201 Tsfr From Other Funds - - - - - - - - - - Total Revenues 883,920 907,900 928,170 954,310 982,570 1,011,850 1,042,150 1,073,490 1,105,360 1,105,760 EXPENSES 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% Personal Services 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 101 Regular Salaries 71,262 73,399 75,601 77,869 80,206 82,612 85,090 87,643 90,272 92,980 102 O.T. Salaries 2,575 2,652 2,732 2,814 2,898 2,985 3,075 3,167 3,262 3,360 121 PERA City Share 5,353 5,513 5,679 5,849 6,025 6,205 6,392 6,583 6,781 6,984 122 FICA City Share 5,649 5,818 5,993 6,172 6,357 6,548 6,745 6,947 7,155 7,370 131 Ins. City Share 11,111 11,444 11,787 12,141 12,505 12,880 13,267 13,665 14,075 14,497 Total Personal Services 95,949 98,827 101,792 104,846 107,991 111,231 114,568 118,005 121,545 125,191 Supplies 208 Postage 1,700 1,750 1,803 1,857 1,913 1,970 2,029 2,090 2,153 2,217 212 Motor Fuel & Lube - - - - - - - - - 221 Maint- Equipment 5,150 5,305 5,464 5,628 5,796 5,970 6,149 6,334 6,524 6,720 Small Tools 567 583 601 619 638 657 676 697 718 739 General Supplies 2,163 2,228 2,295 2,364 2,434 2,508 2,583 2,660 2,740 2,822 Total Supplies 9,579 9,866 10,162 10,467 10,781 11,105 11,438 11,781 12,134 12,498 Other Services & Charges 300 Financial & Audit 2,575 2,652 2,732 2,814 2,898 2,985 3,075 3,167 3,262 3,360 308 Consulting 5,150 5,305 5,464 5,628 5,796 5,970 6,149 6,334 6,524 6,720 313 Engineering - Design Stage 5,150 5,305 5,464 5,628 5,796 5,970 6,149 6,334 6,524 6,720 321 Communication 4,635 4,774 4,917 5,065 5,217 5,373 5,534 5,700 5,871 6,048 331 Travel, Conf,Sch 1,545 1,591 1,639 1,688 1,739 1,791 1,845 1,900 1,957 2,016 360 Insurance -Total 7,210 7,426 7,649 7,879 8,115 8,358 8,609 8,867 9,133 9,407 380 Utilities- Gas /Elec 7,725 7,957 8,195 8,441 8,695 8,955 9,224 9,501 9,786 10,079 385 MCES Service Charges 592,250 610,018 628,318 647,168 666,583 686,580 707,177 728,393 750,245 772,752 386 Excelsior Sewer Chg 31,930 32,888 33,875 34,891 35,937 37,016 38,126 39,270 40,448 41,661 400 Contractual 20,600 21,218 21,855 22,510 23,185 23,881 24,597 25,335 26,095 26,878 433 Dues & Subscriptions - - - - - - - - - - 440 Misc. Services 155 159 164 169 174 179 184 190 196 202 450 Service Charges 1,545 1,591 1,639 1,688 1,739 1,791 1,845 1,900 1,957 2,016 Total Other Services & Charges 680,470 700,884 721,910 743,567 765,874 788,851 812,516 836,892 861,998 887,858 Page 14 Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Capital Outlay 1,085,997 1,530,577 1,063,864 540 Machinery -Equip 954,647 51,000 - - - - - - 580 Other Improve 150,000 220,000 80;000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 Total Capital Outlay 150,000 271,000 80,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 Transfers 1,036,677 1,065,678 1,095,548 720 Permanent 234,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 720 Interfund Loan 150,000 450,000 150,000 Total Transfers 150,000 450,000 150,000 - - - - - - - TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,085,997 1,530,577 1,063,864 928,880 954,647 981,186 1,008,522 1,036,677 1,065,678 1,095,548 1,530,577 1,063,864 928,880 954,647 981,186 1,008,522 1,036,677 1,065,678 1,095,548 Fund Balance 2,119,794 1,497,117 REVENUES OVER /(UNDER) EXPENDITURES (202,077) (622,677) (135,694) 25,430 27,923 30,664 33,628 36,813 39,682 10,212 Beginning Cash Balance 2,321,871 2,119,794 1,497,117 1,361,423 1,386,852 1,414,776 1,445,439 1,479,068 1,515,880 1,555,563 Ending Cash Balance 2,119,794 1,497,117 1,361,423 1,386,852 1,414,776 1,445,439 1,479,068 1,515,880 1,555,563 1,565,775 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Expenditures 1,085,997 1,530,577 1,063,864 928,880 954,647 981,186 1,008,522 1,036,677 1,065,678 1,095,548 Fund Balance 2,119,794 1,497,117 1,361,423 1,386,852 1,414,776 1,445,439 1,479,068 1,515,880 1,555,563 1,565,775 Page 15 City of Shorewood Financial Management Plan January 23, 2015 Recycling Utility Fund - This fund accounts for all revenues and expenses related to residential recycling Other Services & Charges 400 Contractual 117,000 119,340 121,727 124,161 126,645 129,177 131,761 134,396 137,084 139,826 440 Misc. Services 8,160 8,323 8,490 8,659 8,833 9,009 9,189 9,373 9,561 9,752 450 Service Charges - - - - - - - - - TotalOtherServices & Charges 125,160 127,663 130,216 132,821 135,477 138,187 140,950 143,769 146,645 149,578 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% REVENUES OVER/(UNDER) EXPENDITURES Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget REVENUES 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 #### County Recycling Aid 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,001 21,001 21,001 21,002 #### Interest Earnings 521 768 1,003 1,225 1,434 1,629 1,811 1,979 2,133 2,272 #N## Recycling Service Charges 155,000 155,000 155,000 155,000 155,000 155,000 155,000 155,000 155,000 155,001 ### City Clean -up Fees 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 #### Recycling Bin Sales - - - - - - - - - #### Revenue from Contractor #### Transfers from Other Funds - - - - - - - - Total Revenues 184,521 184,768 185,003 185,225 185,434 185,629 185,812 185,980 186,134 186,275 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% EXPENSES 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% Personal Services 102 O.T. Salaries 1,020 1,040 1,061 1,082 1,104 1,126 1,149 1,172 1,195 1,219 103 Part -Time Salaries 5,518 5,629 5,741 5,856 5,973 6,093 6,214 6,339 6,465 6,595 121 PERA City Share 485 494 504 514 524 535 546 557 568 579 122 FICA City Share 510 520 531 541 552 563 574 586 598 609 131 Ins. City Share 731 746 761 776 792 807 824 840 857 874 Total Personal Services 8,264 8,429 8,598 8,770 8,945 9,124 9,307 9,493 9,683 9,876 Supplies 208 Postage 1,428 1,457 1,486 1,515 1,546 1,577 1,608 1,640 1,673 1,707 245 General Supplies 306 312 318 325 331 338 345 351 359 366 Total Supplies 1,734 1,769 1,804 1,840 1,877 1,914 1,953 1,992 2,032 2,072 Other Services & Charges 400 Contractual 117,000 119,340 121,727 124,161 126,645 129,177 131,761 134,396 137,084 139,826 440 Misc. Services 8,160 8,323 8,490 8,659 8,833 9,009 9,189 9,373 9,561 9,752 450 Service Charges - - - - - - - - - TotalOtherServices & Charges 125,160 127,663 130,216 132,821 135,477 138,187 140,950 143,769 146,645 149,578 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 135,158 137,861 140,618 143,431 146,299 149,225 152,210 155,254 158,359 161,526 REVENUES OVER/(UNDER) EXPENDITURES 49,363 46,907 44,384 41,794 39,134 36,404 33,602 30,726 27,775 24,748 Beginning Cash Balance 104,252 153,615 200,522 244,906 286,700 325,834 362,238 395,840 426,566 454,341 Ending Cash Balance 153,615 200,522 244,906 286,700 325,834 362,238 395,840 426,566 454,341 479,089 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Expenditures 125,160 127,663 130,216 132,821 135,477 Cash Balance 104,252 153,615 200,522 244,906 286,700 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 138,187 140,950 143,769 146,645 149,578 325,834 362,238 395,840 426,566 454,341 Page 16 City of . ••• pwi • January 23, 1 Storm Water Utility Fund - This fund is used for all storm water 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 REVENUES 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 33620 Grant Proceeds - - - - - - - - - - 36101 Special Assessments 7,400 7,400 7,400 7,400 7,400 7,400 7,400 7,400 7,400 7,400 36210 Interest Earnings 1,884 (832) 960 1,993 2,576 (2,944) (3,279) (4,149) (2,789) (1,350) 36270 Miscellaneous Revenue - - - - - - - - - - 37410 Storm Utility Charges 269,000 323,000 388,000 465,000 465,000 465,000 465,000 465,000 465,000 465,000 39201 Transfers 234,500 2,184 2,250 2,317 2,387 2,459 2,532 2,608 2,687 2,767 39201 Interfund Loans 150,000 450,000 150,000 (12,500) (12,500) (12,500) (12,500) (12,500) (12,500) (12,500) Total Revenues 662,784 779,568 546,360 461,893 462,476 456,956 456,621 455,751 457,111 458,550 Capital Outlay 580 Other Improvements 744,300 383,000 186,000 129,000 735,000 193,000 241,000 11,880 - Page 17 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% EXPENSES 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% Personal Services 101 Regular Salaries 21,139 21,773 22,426 23,099 23,792 24,506 25,241 25,998 26,778 27,581 121 PERA City Share 1,545 1,591 1,639 1,688 1,739 1,791 1,845 1,900 1,957 2,016 122 FICA City Share 1,617 1,666 1,716 1,767 1,820 1,875 1,931 1,989 2,048 2,110 131 Ins. City Share 2,121 2,184 2,250 2,317 2,387 2,459 2,532 2,608 2,687 2,767 Total Personal Services 26,422 27,214 28,031 28,872 29,738 30,630 31,549 32,495 33,470 34,474 Supplies 200 Office Supplies 103 106 109 113 116 119 123 127 130 134 208 Postage 1,442 1,485 1,530 1,576 1,623 1,672 1,722 1,773 1,827 1,881 221 Maint- Equipment 5,665 5,835 6,010 6,190 6,376 6,567 6,764 6,967 7,176 7,392 240 Small Tools 309 318 328 338 348 358 369 380 391 403 245 General Supplies 3,090 3,183 3,278 3,377 3,478 3,582 3,690 3,800 3,914 4,032 Total Supplies 10,609 10,927 11,255 11,593 11,941 12,299 12,668 13,048 13,439 13,842 Other Services & Charges 300 Financial & Audit 303 Engineering 20,600 21,218 21,855 22,510 23,185 23,881 24,597 25,335 26,095 26,878 304 Legal 1,030 1,061 1,093 1,126 1,159 1,194 1,230 1,267 1,305 1,344 321 Communication 5,150 5,305 5,464 5,628 5,796 5,970 6,149 6,334 6,524 6,720 313 Engineering- Design Stage 515 530 546 563 580 597 615 633 652 672 351 Print /Publish 103 106 109 113 116 119 123 127 130 134 360 Insurance -Total - - - - - - - - - - 400 Contractual 73,645 75,854 78,130 80,474 82,888 85,375 87,936 90,574 93,291 96,090 433 Subscrip- Member 6,798 7,002 7,212 7,428 7,651 7,881 8,117 8,361 8,612 8,870 440 Misc. Services 1,133 1,167 1,202 1,238 1,275 1,313 1,353 1,393 1,435 1,478 450 Service Charges 1,030 1,061 1,093 1,126 1,159 1,194 1,230 1,267 1,305 1,344 Total Other Services & Charges 110,004 113,304 116,703 120,204 123,810 127,525 131,351 135,291 139,350 143,530 Capital Outlay 580 Other Improvements 744,300 383,000 186,000 129,000 735,000 193,000 241,000 11,880 - Page 17 Page 18 Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Capital Outlay 744,300 383,000 186,000 129,000 735,000 193,000 241,000 11,880 - - 720 Loan Repayment 1 43,000 66,000 101,000 114,000 114,000 127,000 127,000 127,000 127,000 127,001 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 934,335 600,446 442,989 403,669 1,014,489 490,453 543,567 319,714 313,259 318,848 REVENUES OVER/(UNDER) EXPENDITURES (271,551) 179,123 103,371 58,225 (552,013) (33,498) (86,946) 136,037 143,852 139,702 Beginning Cash Balance 188,398 (83,153) 95,970 199,341 257,566 (294,447) (327,945) (414,891) (278,854) (135,002) Ending Cash Balance (83,153) 95,970 199,341 257,566 (294,447) (327,945) (414,891) (278,854) (135,002) 4,700 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 934,335 600,446 442,989 403,669 1,014,489 490,453 543,567 319,714 313,259 318,848 (83,153) 95,970 199,341 257,566 (294,447) (327,945) (414,891) (278,854) (135,002) 4,700 Page 18 City of Shorewood Financial Management Pla Fund Balance Summary January 23, 2015 1 me W.- Page 19 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Dollar Fund Name Cash Cash Cash Cash Cash Cash Cash Cash Cash Cash Change General Fund 3,710,220 3,550,796 3,403,158 3,267,628 3,139,401 3,018,973 2,911,749 2,813,049 3,253,287 3,702,771 (7,448) South Shore Center 901 (1,208) (5,910) (13,255) (23,298) (36,091) (51,691) (70,152) (91,532) (115,890) (116,791) Parks 533,989 386,689 (429,411) (595,511) (575,511) (665,311) (636,111) (600,311) (561,311) (545,111) (1,079,100) Equipment 236,502 150,702 197,502 195,002 248,002 249,202 231,402 322,602 169,202 175,502 (61,000) Streets 921,964 587,364 40,764 36,164 (1,136,736) (1,396,836) (2,084,536) (1,742,936) (2,289,936) (2,023,937) (2,945,901) (VISA 119,701 - - - - - - - - - (119,701) Trail Construction (904,479) (570,581) (184,877) 26,320 (615,983) (407,786) (201,089) - - - 904,479 Community Infrastructure 172,107 - - - - - - - - - (172,107) Subtotal - Tax Supported 4,790,905 4,103,762 3,021,226 2,916,348 1,035,875 762,150 169,724 722,252 479,710 1,193,335 (3,597,569) Water 2,838,075 2,892,483 2,966,111 3,038,899 3,104,581 3,163,410 3,215,748 3,261,402 3,300,149 3,331,781 493,706 Sewer 2,119,794 1,497,117 1,361,423 1,386,852 1,414,776 1,445,439 1,479,068 1,515,880 1,555,563 1,565,775 (554,019) Recycling 153,615 200,522 244,906 286,700 325,834 362,238 395,840 426,566 454,341 479,089 325,474 Storm Water (83,153) 95,970 199,341 257,566 (294,447) (327,945) (414,891) (278,854) (135,002) 4,700 87,853 Subtotal - Enterprise 5,028,332 4,686,093 4,771,781 4,970,018 4,550,743 4,643,143 4,675,764 4,924,995 5,175,051 5,381,346 353,014 Total Available 9,819,236 8,789,854 7,793,006 7,886,366 5,586,618 5,405,293 4,845,489 5,647,247 5,654,760 6,574,681 (3,244,555) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 9,819,236 8,789,854 7,793,006 7,886,366 5,586,618 5,405,293 4,845,489 5,647,247 5,654,760 6,574,681 me W.- Page 19 ,.n Springsted Financing Options for Minnesota Cities Cities in Minnesota have broad authority to issue General Obligation Bonds without a referendum to meet their capital needs. The following list outlines the primary authorities used by cities to finance capital projects. All of the authorities listed below allow cities to secure the bonds with a general obligation pledge. Improvement Bonds (M.S. 429) • Purpose: Street improvement projects whereby the benefiting property pays at least 20% of project cost • Voter Approval: Not as long as the 20% test is met • Board Approval: Majority vote of the governing body • Subject to Statutory Debt Limit: No • Other Statutory Limitations: No • Term Limitations: 30 years • Cities must hold public hearing ordering the project before bonds can be sold • Cities must hold public hearing setting assessment and comply with notification requirements in statute • Assessments may be set before or after bonds are sold • Amount of the assessment cannot exceed the value added to the property • Tax exempt properties, i.e. churches, schools, and non - profits, pay assessments 2. Equipment Certificates (M.S. 412.301) • Purpose: Public safety, road and maintenance equipment, software and other capital equipment • Voter Approval: No • Board Approval: Two - thirds of government body • Subject to Statutory Debt Limit: Yes • Other Statutory Limitations: Total principal amount issued in a fiscal year cannot exceed 0,25 percent of the estimated market value in the city for that year • Term Limitations: 10 Years from the date of issue; software and equipment must have an expected useful life at least as long as the term of the certificates • Public hearing required only if the principal exceeds 0.25 percent of estimated market value Capital Improvement Plan Bonds (M.S. 475.521) • Purpose: Acquisition or betterment of public lands, city hall, library, public safety facilities and public works facilities. Does not include light rail transit, parks, roads, bridges or other administrative buildings. • Voter Approval: No; subject to reverse referendum if 5% of electorate in last general election sign petition • Board Approval: Three - fifths of government body; Two - thirds on seven- member boards • Subject to Statutory Debt Limit: Yes • Other Statutory Limitations: Maximum principal and interest due in any one year on all outstanding bonds issued under M.S. 475.521 cannot exceed 016 percent of the estimated market value in the city. • Term Limitations: 30 years • Cities must establish five -year CIP and address eight criteria outlined in M.S. 475.521 • Cities must hold public hearing on the CIP and intent to issue bonds • Public hearing notification must be in the official newspaper at least 14 days but no more than 28 days prior to the hearing • Reverse referendum period begins the day after the public hearing February 2013 Public Sector Advisors Springsted 4. Street Reconstruction Plan Bonds (M.S. 475.58 Subd. 3) • Purpose: Utility replacement and relocation, turn lanes and other improvements having a substantial public safety function, realignments and other modifications to intersect with state and county roads, and the local share of state and county roads. Does not include widening streets or adding curb and gutter, • Voter Approval: No; subject to reverse referendum if 5% of electorate in last general election sign petition • Board Approval: Unanimous approval of the members present • Subject to Statutory Debt Limit: Yes • Other Statutory Limitations: No • Cities must establish five -year plan that describes the street reconstruction to be financed, estimated costs and any planned reconstruction of other streets in the municipality • Cities must hold public hearing on the plan and intent to issue bonds • Public hearing notification must be in the official newspaper at least 10 days but no more than 28 days prior to the hearing • Reverse referendum period begins the day after the public hearing 5. Utility Revenue Bonds (M.S. 444) • Purpose: Build, construct, reconstruct, repair, enlarge and maintain waterworks, sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems, or any portion of the systems. • Voter Approval: No • Board Approval: Majority vote of the governing body • Subject to Statutory Debt Limit: No • Other Statutory Limitations: No • Net revenue of the utilities are pledged to the repayment of the bonds • Utilities must maintain net revenues adequate to pay all principal and interest when due and maintain reserves securing the payment of the bonds • Real estate taxes (levy) may only be used on a temporary basis when net revenues are not sufficient 6. Abatement Bonds (M.S. 469.1813 and 469.1814) • Purpose: Finance or construct public improvements that increase or preserve the tax base, to help acquire or construct public facilities, to acquire or convey land for economic development purposes, to provide employment opportunities, or to help provide services to city residents • Voter Approval: No • Board Approval: Majority vote of the governing body • Subject to Statutory Debt Limit: No • Other Statutory Limitations: Maximum principal amount of bonds issued under the abatement authority cannot exceed the estimated sum of the abatements for the years authorized. • Cities must hold public hearing to establish the abatement • Public hearing notification must be in the official newspaper at least 10 days but no more than 30 days prior to the hearing. The notice must identify the property(s) abated and specify the total estimated amount to be abated. • Cities may grant an abatement for up to 15 years (20 years if either the County or School District participate) • Maximum amount of abatement in any given year cannot exceed the greater of 10% of the net tax capacity of the city or $200,000. February 2013 Public Sector Advisors Item #3 T391 WoMe 1 M F t I Too, Item #3 I Z3 MO ' ! ! i 5755 Country Club Road ® Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 •952- 960 -7900 Fax: 952 -474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall aici.shorewood.mmus Meeting Date: January 29, 2015 To: Mayor and City Council Members From: Bill Joynes Re: Retreat Item 3: Issues Related to Police and Fire JPAs As you are aware, the Coordinating Committee (CC) of the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department has recently hired Mike Siitari, former Edina Chief, to serve a six month assignment as Interim Chief. The intent of the process is for the Interim to do a review of the Department's policies and priorities, engage in discussions with Department personnel and member cities, review structure and budget, and eventually assist with the recruitment and hiring of the next Chief. This dialogue will be wide ranging and include possible revisions to the current organizational structure and service responsibility of both Police and Fire Departments. This will likely be controversial and it is recommended that the Council have an initial discussion at the retreat to be made aware of the background and become familiar with the elements being reviewed in the next six months. As a Council you will have an opportunity to meet with Mike and provide individual input to him as he develops a list of issues and directions that the CC might wish to consider as we go forward with the transition. I have attached a copy of the minutes from CC meeting held last year at the invitation of Tonka Bay Mayor De La Vega, Chair of the CC, which should give you an idea of the scope of the anticipated review. South Lake Minnetonka Police Department Coordinating Committee 4901 Manitou Road SLMPD Coordinating Committee Meeting Tonka Bay, Minnesota Wednesday, May 21, 2014 5:30 p.m. SUMMARY MINUTES 1. CONVENE COORDINATING COMMITTEE MEETING Chair De La Vega called the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M. A. Roll Call Present: South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) Coordinating Committee Members: Chair De La Vega; Committee Member Kind and Committee Member Zerby Also present: Deephaven Administrator Manager Luger (departed at Bay Administrator Kohlmann. Others present: Deephaven Mayor Skrede Absent: Vice -Chair Gaylord B. Approval of Agenda Young (representing Greenwood); Excelsior City 6:14 P.M.); Shorewood Administrator Joynes; and Tonka Zerby moved, mind seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 3/0. 2. NEW BUSINESS A. Succession Planning and Organizational Development Administrator Kohlmann noted he left the agenda topic broad so there could be a candid discussion. Chair De La Vega stated SLMPD Chief Litsey has indicated that he will retire no later than February 28, 2015. Because of that change the Coordinating Committee thought it would be an appropriate time to reevaluate how things are done. He stated that during his tenure as a member of the Excelsior Fire District (EFD) Board and now as a member of the Committee he has noticed that the business of public safety is changing. The City of Minneapolis' fire department is struggling with how that service organization should operate because there are fewer fire calls and more medical calls to respond to. He suggested asking SLMPD Chief Litsey and EFD Chief Gerber for a history of the types of calls. He stated that from his perspective there has been an increase in the number of medical calls the two organizations respond to. He does not think they are staffed appropriately to effectively support medical response. He then stated he thought the two separate organizations could be better coordinated at least at the administrative level. The organizations serve four of the same cities. [The EFD also provides fire services to the City of Deephaven.] He thought there is some duplication of efforts. He noted that he and Committee Member Kind have read the same articles about the joint public safety model where fire and police are one organization. He suggested inviting someone who has had that model work successfully to come and speak to the group. He stated the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) may have other models to consider as well. He noted that Coordinating Committee Member Gaylord has suggested discussing a SUMMARY MINUTES - SLMPD COORDINATING COMMITTEE MEETING Wednesday — May 21, 2014 Page 2 of 10 taxing district concept. He suggested looking at a broad view of how others are providing public safety services. He stated with the pending resignation of Chief Litsey he thought it would be appropriate to take a broader look at both organizations to determine if the current model of operating is still appropriate. He noted that he does not have any preconceived notion about the outcome; maybe the existing model is fine. If that is confirmed so be it. He noted that he does not have professional experience in either police or fire. But, he does have background in organizational structure. He stated he looks at things like organizational charts, spans of control, roles and responsibilities. He then stated on the police side there are SLMPD personnel involved with the drug task force and financial crimes. He questioned if those are priority things for them to be involved with. Or, is the SLMPD a traffic operation. He stated every year it costs the member cities more for services yet nothing has been changed. He does not like the thought of continuing on that trend line. He commented that this will hit the newspapers soon and that will have to be dealt. He stated Deephaven Mayor Skrede has some thoughts about what he would like to see and how Deephaven would like to organize police and fire services. Mayor Skrede stated if the City of Minneapolis thinks it can gain efficiencies in how it provides medical emergency services and things like that he thought it would be worthwhile to look into how it intends to do that. He mentioned the idea of maybe a special unit for providing those services. He stated Shorewood Councilmember Woodruff had told him that in Mound there was fire call and Woodruff called to find out about it. It ended up being a downed power line and 17 firefighters showed up for it. He then stated in the past he has seen where 25 — 28 people show up for a heart attack medical emergency. He went on to state that EFD firefighters have to respond to at least one third of the calls for a six month period in order for that period to count towards their pension. Maybe that could be reassessed. He commented that the previous fire chief had a specialized group. There were a dozen of them for a two or three week period who responded to calls. He recommended looking at the page out system. He also commented that there appears to be a willingness to drive a red truck anywhere. He does not think that is beneficial for the firefighters. He stated if there were to be an emergency management group maybe medical could be broken out to that. Chair De La Vega stated based on the last EFD call numbers he saw it is his recollection that. about one- half of the calls were medical. He questioned if a firefighter signed up for having to make one third of those types of call. If medical calls were handled by some subset of the firefighters then the number of calls a firefighter had to respond to would be decreased substantially. Firefighters' desire to respond to calls might increase. The firefighters are not paid enough to get up at 3:00 A.M. to respond to medical calls. Mayor Skrede stated the EFD member cities do not pay EFD firefighters enough to muck up their personal lives on a continuous basis for medical calls. He stated he thought firefighters would like it if a rotating subset of firefighters were assigned to respond to medical calls for two weeks and then have six weeks off from medical response. He also thought that a firefighter would have to think twice about responding to a call when their pager goes off at 1:00 A.M. if they have already satisfied their 33 percent requirement. He does not like the fact that they are challenged with that decision. Committee Member Zerby stated people are focusing on the EFD and not successions planning. He then stated that one of the things the City Administrators /Manger has talked about is a public safety director. SUMMARY MINUTES - SLMPD COORDINATING COMMITTEE MEETING Wednesday — May 21, 2014 Page 3 of 10 He put forth an idea that was discussed which is to put EFD Chief Gerber over both police and fire and have a deputy chief for police and for fire below him. He noted that Gerber has a great reputation for being a team builder and for strategic planning. He thought Gerber would be a good fit for that role. It may be the kind of challenge that would keep him here. He stated the daily needs are different from the needs for a serious emergency event. Mutual aid can provide some help but not all of help. Both needs have to be considered. Chair De La Vega stated anytime there is an event he sees other fire departments show up with their equipment. From his perspective, people have been looking at the EFD department in isolation. If people take a broader view and look at the people and equipment other departments around the District have the necessary resources are there. Both the SLMPD and the EFD are part of the larger community. He then stated that in some instances too many trucks have shown up; they were backed up waiting to get to the fire. Committee Member Zerby noted that the situation in the EFD community is somewhat different because the entire community is not hydranted. Therefore, there is a need for tanker trucks. Chair De La Vega stated he has not heard one resident complain about the service provided. He noted he would cringe when he would look at the EFD report and 16 or 17 firefighters would show up for a call. Mayor Skrede stated a resident smelled smoke in the attic across the street from his house. A duty officer, a Deephaven squad car and three other trucks showed up. One of the trucks had to park quite far away because there was not room on the street. It turned out there was not a fire. Firefighters spent 1.5 hours at the site checking things out. Committee Member Zerby stated the answer that he has always gotten is that comes with the territory of having a volunteer fire department. No one knows in advance how many firefighters are going to show up. Chair De La Vega asked how the authorized compliment of 50 firefighters came about. Was a study done to determine that is the correct number? He stated if calls were focused on certain groups he thought fire service could be provided with a lot less people. Committee Member Zerby cautioned against making that assumption. De La Vega suggested that be part of this evaluation of resources. Mayor Skrede stated 50 came about when the District was formed and two stations were built. Prior to the second station there were about 36 — 38 volunteer firefighters at the Excelsior Fire Department. From his perspective that would have been the time to assign one or two dozen of them to the second station. Instead, a decision was made to authorize up to 50 firefighters to handle the worst case basis. It's a situation where the organization is inconveniently overstaffed for a long time. He thought cutting some of the firefighters would be a challenge. Chair De La Vega stated that reduction would be done through attrition. Skrede reiterated the idea of having small groups respond for short defined periods of time and having the others in reserve. Committee Member Zerby reiterated the purpose of this meeting is to talk about succession planning for the SLMPD Chief. C Wednesday — May 21, 2014 Page 4 of 10 Administrator Joynes stated that although this is not an inappropriate conversation, the EFD Board needs to be invited to be part of the discussion because its legal responsibility is similar to the Coordinating Committee's for police. Administrator Young stated that from his perspective unless there can be some efficiency gained by having one person over both police and fire he does not see the value in it. He expressed concern that doing that would just add salary expense. He stated there could be some reduction in current salary if the second layer positions were assistant chiefs. He explained that based on organizations that went to the combined model there were some organizational efficiencies achieved but nothing was said about there being cost savings. Chair De La Vega stated the SLMPD Police Chief does about 90 percent administrative work. Yet, the SLMPD is understaffed on the streets on a day to day basis. He noted there is administrative workload that has to be done for police and for fire. From his vantage point, that workload detracts from the Chiefs' abilities to do the professional work of dealing with events that occur on a personal basis on the street. He stated he envisions having an administrator to handle the administrative work. That person would not be actively involved in day -to -day operations. There would be a lot of back and forth cross training between police and fire personnel along with some degree of merging of both professions and doing a lot more with less. That would enhance employees' skill sets. He noted he read about that in an article. He thought there would be cost savings (e.g., the reduction in pension liability because of a reduction in staffing) by going to a combined organization. Administrator Young stated the handling of medical calls could definitely be set up differently. He recommended the role of ambulance service providers be thoroughly vetted. There can be SLMPD, EFD and. ambulance EMT personnel showing up to one medical call. It may be possible to have police respond to more medical calls. He then stated the total salary cost for firefighters is about $160,000 - $180,000. If they did not respond to medical calls it would reduce that cost by about 50 percent. He commented that government agencies are salary and benefit loaded when it comes to cost. He stated anytime he sees a model that introduces more personnel it causes him to exercise caution. He then stated with the combined model it may be possible to have a part-time assistant chief while noting that Chief Gerber is already asking for a full -time assistant chief. He explained that state statute requires there be some sort of official police chief that is properly licensed. Administrator Joynes clarified that would not necessarily have to be a public safety director. It. could be an operational coordinator that carries the license. City Manager Luger stated some of the efficiencies being discussed could be achieved without going to the public safety director model. Going to that model would take a great deal of work and time. February 28, 2015, is not that far away. She then stated the SLMPD went through organizational changes not too long ago and added layers of management. She thought it prudent to revisit if all of the current layers of management and support staff are needed. She noted that the EFD Chief is asking for an assistant so he can take on more work. She stated that maybe having a fresh set of eyes look at things could help identify options based on the community's needs. Committee Member Zerby stated there had been a little discussion about putting an administrator in place. He noted that the Coordinating Committee has heard that SLMPD Chief Litsey spends a lot of time on budgeting alone. He assumes EFD Chief Gerber does the same. He stated that if there was one person preparing a public safety budget and one public safety board he asked if that would be more effective. SUMMARY MINUTES - SLMPD COORDINATING COMMITTEE MEETING Wednesday — May 21, 2014 Page 5 of 10 Chair De La Vega stated that based on his experience on the EFD Board and now the SLMPD Coordinating Committee he thinks things are being done in vacuums. That is concerning to him. He reiterated his desire to focus on the handling of medical calls. From his perspective, it is the biggest part of the community's public safety business yet it is the least organized. It disturbs him to know that at times 16 firefighters and a two -ton fire truck respond to a medical call. Mayor Skrede stated if police are the first responder to a medical call they cannot leave the patient until a person with at least first responder qualification arrives at the site. That means there is not a police officer on the street until the replacement shows up. Chair De La Vega stated that maybe just some functional aspects of the organizations need to reconfigured and the organizations don't need to be combined. Committee Member Zerby stated that getting back to succession planning it may make the most sense to hire an interim chief and have them look at the organization as a whole and come back with ideas about how to reconfigure public safety. He noted he does not know if the group could reorganize the organization in nine months. Committee Member Kind noted that it is her understanding that SLMPD Deputy Chief Pearson is going to retire in April 2015. Administrator Joynes stated if the intent is to have an interim person look at how to change the organization he recommended that person come from the outside. There are a lot of ex- chiefs or firms that could come in and be interim chief and do the organizational audit. There is a need for neutrality when that is done. City Manager Luger noted there had been an interim City Manager in place for Excelsior before she was hired. That person could make recommendations that a manager would not make because they had no ties to that organization. Chair De La Vega suggested the City Administrators /Manager group continue to meet once or twice a month and vet out a model that the Coordinating Committee could discuss. Administrator Joynes stated the group can research how other organizations handle medical calls and the impact on staffing. It can also look into the number of police and fire personnel that would be needed for that operation. And, the quality of officer in charge of police training and what the roles of the various police personnel are and what activities they spend time on. He noted that some of the organizations who went to the joint public safety model were successful and some were not; some did the cross training between police and fire. He then noted that the implications of that is the number of volunteers gets whittled down and when a certain threshold is reached the EFD will have to move to a duty crew type of operation. It is likely then that the firefighters will become employees and there will be union issues. He also noted that it is becoming increasingly difficult to find people; especially when there are not a lot of fires to attend to. He stated that if a change like this is being considered he encouraged people to solicit input from key people in the police and fire organizations. Committee Member Kind suggested this group have a meeting and include the EFD Fire Board.. SUMMARY MINUTES - SLMPD COORDINATING COMMITTEE MEETING Wednesday — May 21, 2014 Page 6 of 10 Chair De La Vega clarified the group of those in attendance is not a decision making group. He suggested waiting until there is a recommendation before involving the fire side. He wants to see if the public safety model may or may not be appropriate for this community. Committee Member Kind stated it may be time to dissolve the joint powers arrangements and have one member city take over responsibility for police and fire and have the cities contract for the services. Committee Member Zerby asked if moving to a taxing district would solve some of the issues. Chair De La Vega stated he is not in favor of creating a taxing authority that is not comprised of elected officials. Zerby noted that is the case with the watershed districts, the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and the Metropolitan Council. Administrator Joynes stated Lake Johanna and Spring Lake Park- Blaine - Mounds View have nonprofit corporations created for fire that serve those cities. The cities must approve budgets. But, the leadership and administration is a separate nonprofit model. He clarified he does not understand the arrangement well. Joynes recommended coming back with one model at a time and focus discussion on that. Chair De La Vega asked the City Administrators /Manager group to start out getting data about types of calls and number of responders that respond to calls. He then asked what types of policing officers do. Is the SLMPD a traffic operation or is it a financial / criminal organization? He would like data for the last five years. Committee Member Zerby asked if people want the SLMPD to catch every speeder and every drunk on the roadway. He commented that out in the South Lake area there some are people with expensive homes that don't want to pay for some public safety services. Zerby clarified that from Shorewood's perspective he is not interested in providing contracted services. That would put the risk on Shorewood. He does not want Shorewood to get into a bidding war with the Hennepin County Sherriff s Office. Chair De La Vega asked why the South Lake cities have the joint powers arrangements. Committee Member Zerby stated there was belief the cities could do more together than individually. Committee Member Kind noted that the SLMPD JPA is the oldest JPA in the state. Administrator Young stated the fire side drove the new buildings and part of that was establishing the EFD. Prior to the District being formed the cities contracted with Excelsior for fire services. The cities would complain about the purchase of a new tanker truck and the cost being passed along as contracted fees. City Manager Luger stated she was amazed that the Excelsior Fire Department could even function out of the old fire station in Excelsior. City Manager Luger departed the meeting at 6:14 P.M. SUMMARY MINUTES - SLMPD COORDINATING COMMITTEE MEETING Wednesday — May 21, 2014 Page 7 of 10 Committee Member Kind stated that making a decision to have a combined police and fire entity would have to take into account that Deephaven has its own police department. Committee Member Zerby stated Deephaven could purchase EFD Station 2 and the associated equipment from the other four cities and be on their own or it could join the SLMPD joint powers organization. Or it could do something else. Mayor Skrede stated he has done the math on that. Over time what Deephaven would pay for the bonded debt would cover Deephaven's cost for the Station. If that were to happen Deephaven would want the firefighters to feel that they have the right training. He commented it is as workable as it is non workable. From his perspective it would be financially the same. Committee Member Kind stated if that happened she asked who would serve Greenwood, noting Greenwood is closer to Station 2 in Deephaven. Mayor Skrede stated that would work. Kind noted that she does not hate that idea. Mayor Skrede stated he likes the idea of the interim chief of police. He then stated the EFD Chief and EFD Board would not have to be involved until the interim chief was on site and that there was agreement that future public safety directions would potentially involve fire. Administrator Joynes explained that an interim police chief that Mound hired had been Golden Valley's public safety director and handled both police and fire. That individual was brought on at Mound to in part talk about the consolidation of police services between Mound and Minnetrista. Because of his credibility he was able to study the organization without ruffling too many feathers. An individual similar to that person could be brought on for a defined period of time. Committee Member Kind asked Administrator Joynes to talk about his experience with a public safety director when he worked at Golden Valley. Administrator Joynes stated in the past a lot of police and fire departments had civil service commissions and city councils found it hard to get rid of the chiefs. They created public safety directors which were outside of the State's civil service rules. There are probably 15 public safety directors around. Joynes explained that during his 20 -year tenure at Golden Valley that City always had a public safety director who reported to the City Manager and the City Council. That Council had some authority over the director. It worked out well because the right people were involved. Golden Valley had a fire chief and a couple of police operations people that reported directly to the director. Police and fire were housed in the same building. The director had authority over fire and police operations. Eventually inspections went under the fire chief. He thought some administrative costs were reduced by the consolidation but not on street operations. Time would be saved by the City Administrators/Manager and Council because there would only be one oversight group. He commented that police and fire have their own constituencies. That wall will be bumped up against. Mayor Skrede stated from his vantage point he did not think it had been necessary to establish an EFD Operating Committee. SUMMARY MINUTES - SLMPD COORDINATING COMMITTEE MEETING Wednesday — May 21, 2014 Page 8 of 10 Administrator Kohlmann stated what he has taken out of this discussion so far about next steps is for the City Administrators /Manager to gather data on the type and number of calls and what tasks the SLMPD personnel take on, to look at various interim structures and to identify some solutions for filling the police chief role. Mayor Skrede stated the Deephaven Police Department would share its call volume and type information. He noted that Deephaven does not have an investigator. He stated those police officers are also involved with follow -ups on attempted suicides, domestic assaults, mail fraud and so forth. He commented that when there was a situation with the pedophile living in Deephaven a few years ago the Police Chief suggested to hiin that it be passed on to the Hennepin County Sherriff's Office because it was going to be too large of a task to take on. Committee Member Kind stated from her perspective the SLMPD does not have to be involved in all of the investigations. Chair De La Vega stated there is mission creep in most organizations. Administrator Joynes stated if a decision is made to hire an interim police chief a study period should be declared. Most of the retired chiefs would like to be a personal services contractor for a defined period of time. Chair De La Vega asked if the work the City Administrators /Manager group is being asked to do would be duplicate work that an interim chief would do or would it add value or shorten the study timeframe. Administrator Joynes asked the Coordinating Committee how big it wants this effort to be. Chair De La. Vega stated the study focus at this time is to determine if it would make sense to go down the road of a joint public safety model or some other model. If it does then an interim person would be hired to help form that. Right now data needs to be gathered to validate or invalidate people's perceptions. If they are real concerns then things should be pursued further. He clarified he does not foresee hard fast decisions over the next six months. Administrator Joynes offered up another approach. He suggested that instead. of gathering data on issues the group thinks might be interested in that Councils and some stakeholders in the community be surveyed to find out what if any issues they have with the services provided. Is the size right and is the delivery of them right? The responses will generate questions. Then an interim chief could assess those 10 — 15 things. An interim person needs to be told what they need to do and what structures are up for consideration. Committee Member Zerby stated that if a person is stopped for a DWI they make think there is too much law enforcement. Traffic is always an issue. But, he has never heard a resident complain that too many trucks showed up at their house. Administrator Joynes explained his consulting group did some work for the Lakeville police department. The goal was to create a public relations document for the department of about 90 officers and 14 sergeants. They contacted a faith group, businesses, clubs and so forth. There were teams of officers who went out and asked those groups a series of questions. A link was created between the groups and the SUMMARY MINUTES - SLMPD COORDINATING COMMITTEE MEETING Wednesday — May 21, 2014 Page 9 of 10 police department. The groups had never been asked before. That process created a tremendous amount of good will. That was a 1.5 year long process. In this case it may make sense to survey just the member City Councils. Committee Member Zerby stated he thought people should feel lucky that traffic is the biggest problem for law enforcement in the member cities. Committee Member Kind stated she agrees with Chair De La Vega that medical calls are exceeding fire calls. It would be nice to have some documentation of that. Chair De La Vega noted that EFD Chief Gerber's year in review PowerPoint for the Department contains that information. Administrator Young stated it would be helpful to know the nature of the police calls — traffic versus things like investigative. Chair De La Vega stated that police data is sketchy. It would be helpful to know if, for example, calls are animal related or something of that nature. He then stated the police side is pretty well situated in what they have to do. He thinks that organization is top heavy and there are not enough foot soldiers. Committee Member Zerby noted that the SLMPD will lose its top two people next year. Chair De La Vega stated that he recently asked Chief Litsey to provide an organizational chart with costs associated for the various areas within the organization. He stated he recollects the EFD organization to have a span of one. Committee Member Zerby stated that has nothing to do with succession planning. The person who comes into the organization would have to clean that up. Committee Member Kind reiterated she likes the interim idea that Administrator Joynes suggested. Chair De La Vega concurred. Chair De La Vega stated that before the member cities commit to new full time police chief he would like to sort through some of the issues. He then stated lie thought the bigger opportunities are on the fire side; in particular with the handling of medical calls. The police are on the roadways around the clock and maybe things can be repositioned so that they are more of the first responders. If 50 percent of the EFD calls were fire and the rest medical then firefighters would only have to respond to half of the calls because they would be called in less. Committee Member Zerby stated doing that would require more police personal and less firefighters. Administrator Young stated that one public safety director model required their police officers be firefighters. In response to a comment from Committee Member Kind, Administrator Joynes clarified that mutual aid cannot be used to solve a low staffing issue. It cannot be used for standby. Committee Member Zerby explained that if a person is picked up for a DWI the officers have to take them downtown to be booked into jail. If they were to be put in a holding cell at the SLMPD facility an Wednesday — May 21, 2014 Page 10 of 10 officer would have to stay there and watch them. If there are any complications (e.g., from being on drugs) they have to be taken to the hospital. Administrator Joynes added that if a person is held for 12 hours there has to be food service provided and stated the cells have to be rated for a certain number of hours. Zerby noted that sometimes there is only one or two officers on duty. Administrator Joynes stated the State just eliminated the part-time officer license. Joynes summarized the next step is to get organizational data, contact data and medical call and response data. Kind moved, Zerby seconded, adjourning the SL,MPD Coordinating Committee Meeting of May 21, 2014, at 6:49 P.M. Motion passed 3/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder It Item #4 Mme 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 o 952- 960 -7900 Fax: 952- 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall @cishorewood.mn.us Meeting Date: January 29, 2015 To: Mayor and City Council Members From: Bill Joynes Re: Retreat Item 4: Staffing, Succession Planning In anticipation of major staff changes in the next two years, we asked all our employees to do a quick survey about their work intentions over the next five years. As you can see from the tabulation, we are looking at five positions that likely will change occupants by 2017. This issue is facing all governmental organizations in MN and elsewhere, and planning for a smooth transition has become a priority. In anticipation, PERA, the major retirement program for municipal employees, has worked with the Legislature to enact a number of rule changes that will allow cities to be more creative in this transition period. The changes enable higher degrees of part time work and benefit eligibility. Recently, ads have appeared for "positions in training" that can be coupled with diminished hours on the part of retiring employees to provide for the retention and transfer of organizational knowledge, procedures, and values. It is recommended that Shorewood's Personnel Committee begin discussions and planning for the 2016 / 2017 time frame and that budget recommendations be made known for the 2016 budget process. EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SURVEY RESULTS Staff was asked to complete a brief survey to begin looking at succession planning. Six employees indicated they are thinking of retiring, and provided the following estimated retirement timeline: Position 1. Receptionist /Adm. Asst. 2. City Clerk 3. Planning Director 4. Planning Assistant 5. Building Official /Inspector 6. PW LEO (1 employee) Years to Retirement About 1 -2 years, maybe March 2016 About 2 years, around March 2017 About 2 years, around March 2017 About 2 years, around March 2017 Within the next year About 3 years Employees were also asked if they would consider a reduction in work hours or participating in a job share arrangement, and those approaching retirement indicated this would be something they would consider. If a reduction in work hours were to be an option, employees are interested in maintaining medical benefits, and having a flexible work schedule. Some indicated a certain level of income requirements as well, and would need to know what impact this would have on their Social Security benefits. irst, let me apologize for comparing city employees to fish in the title of this article, but f figurer) in Minne- sota, it was something everyone could relate to and would not find too insulting. Hey, we value fish in Minnesota, right? Second, "succession planning" sounds really technical anti boring, and I wanted to get the attention of all types of city leaders, not just: the city staff that work on human resources issues. Third, a big part of succession planning really is about "keeping the lake stocked" or making sure that you have a sufficient pool of-talented people working for your city and that you are making plans for retirements, resigna- tions, and any unexpected changes. Succession planning really isn't as boring or difficult as it sounds. It is just a plan for what happens when key people leave the city, either through retirement, resignation, discharge, or something unexpected like a serious illness or accident,The plan is ideally written down but, at a minimum, should have been discussed by all of the key leaders in the city. Why do succession planning? Think about this: a $560,000 /year job with benefits at about 25 percent of salary ends up being a million dollar decisionu if the employee stays with the city for 1.4 years. Now think about how long you would deliberate over a million dollar decision on equipment or a road project. Doesn't the city staff make or break the success of a city just as much as a road project or a piece of equip- ment ?You bet they do, Who should be involved? When considering who should be involved with succession planning, it depends on your city's structure and size as well as the city council's level of involvement with hiring decisions. For the top positions (city manager /a(iministrator and maybe some kc;y department T! M re By Laura Kushner heads), the city council will likely be involved in succession planning. For other key positions, probably only the city manager /administrator, human resources director, and the department head would be involved. The smaller the city, the more likely the city council will be involved in at least some of this planning. What are the most important elements? Succession planning can be relatively simple or very detailed and there are even software programs that can help you with succession planning. However, there are a few core elements that are common to all plans: identifica- tion of key positions /functions, talent management, and knowledge transfer. Identify key positions. Identification of key positions is pretty simple in most cities. Generally, the top appointed official, city clerk, and department heads are considered key positions. However, if the city wants to take things a step further, it is also a great idea to think about less obvious staff —for example, a lead maintenance worker who has been with the city for decades and knows everything about the city's infrastructure, an administrative assistant who just knows how to get things done, or a really efficient parks and recreation programmer with great contacts in the parks and recreation world. Manage the talent pool. Once the key positions are identified, the next step is to think about whether or not the city has staff —or "talent " —to step into the key positions if needed, either on a temporary or long -term basis. One thing to note here is that often the person who will handle a job on a temporary basis may be different from the person who will handle it on a long -term basis. For temporary situations, you may bring back a retired former leader or a current leader who is happy to fill in temporarily but has no long -term interest in the position. If the city is facing a crisis, having a well - respected former or current internal leader who can be named within a few days can really boost the confidence of city staff, residents, and local business leaders. Sometimes the city has plenty of internal talent to fill positions on a long -term basis but those individuals are not yet ready for a leadership role. The solution is relatively simple — identify the areas where they need more experience, training, or mentor - ing and just do it. This doesn't always have to be an expensive proposition. Give those individuals "stretch assignments" — duties that are challenging and take them out of their comfort zone. Assign someone to formally or informally mentor them and take the time to explain city politics, decision - making, and how to get things done. If the city can afford it, conducting a developmen- tal psychological assessment is a great way to identify where a potential leader needs more preparation. Ensure the transfer of knowledge. And finally, don't neglect knowledge transfer. Mentoring is a great way to ensure transfer of important city knowledge from one staff member to another, but other methods can include job shadowing, interim positions, joining professional organizations, and research assignments. For more information on succession planning, visit www.Imc.org/ wlcforceplanning to access a full toolkit of ideas, forms, and information. Laura Kushner is human resources director with the League of Minnesota Cities. Phone: (651) 281 - 1203. E -mail: Ikushner@lmc.org. SeerEmitea- 0cioiseFi 2 011 MINN &SOrA CITIES 41 I Item #5 / and Forestry _ • Meeting Date: To: From: Re: Item #5 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 •952- 960 -7900 Fax: 952- 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us * cityhall((-i,)ci.sliorewood.mn.us January 29, 2015 Mayor and City Council Members Bill Joynes Retreat Item 5: Proposed Forester J Public Works Assistant At last year's Retreat the Council discussed various options to staff efforts in the area of Forestry and Diseased Tree Programs, compliance with MS4 regulations (wetland preservation and maintenance) and general administrative support for the Public Works Department. The topic got additional attention throughout the summer in the 2015 budget deliberations. Councilmember Woodruff asked for a three year proposed work plan which was provided to the Council in September of 2014. At budget adaption this item was tabled until discussion could occur at the retreat. Please find attached the initial retreat discussion, the subsequent budget discussion minutes, the job description and the work plan. Since we initially began discussions the City of Apple Valley created exactly the same position and hired that individual this last summer. EXCERPTS OF MEETING MINUTES February 8, 2014 City Council/Staff Retreat 4. Staffing for the Public Works Department Joynes commented that Shorewood has a higher socio- economic status; therefore, resident's requests are more demanding in terms of quality and timely services. He stated the public works employees are your front line ambassadors; they have more contact, and create a big impression with residents. Council needs to understand the type of services the residents demand. He believes there is no slack in the current system; it is managed well. Joynes stated Council needs to tell staff what they want, and staff will provide a plan for how to structure for that. Woodruff stated if expectations are being met, we are ok. But if the expectations are going to change, we need to plan accordingly. He gave some examples, such as, evaluating current expectations of street plowing or how often the grass should be cut in the parks. Siakel suggested bringing in an arborist for assistance. She suggested this could be a resource to offer to residents. Her concerns are making sure public works has the right equipment, and making sure we are not pushing people to a point of safety issues. She asked if there is a need for a person to fill in when employees are out on long term medical leaves, or if a person is needed to do the administrative work. She questioned overall what the needs are. Brown indicated that public works is running at 100% and he believes this is working. He feels that the equipment needs are being met. He sees the shortfall in the administrative side. There will be a push from the storm water issue with regards to information requests and how maintenance is tracked. He noted that he can get in a bind when, for example, one person calls in sick on a roadway patching crew, and how to fill that void. It doesn't happen often, but there may be some days when road patching cannot be done safely due to personnel limits. In response to a question from Woodruff, Brown noted the goal is to review the roadway survey annually. Hornby stated that when looking at public works staffing as it relates to storm water requirements, most public works departments will need approximately 75% time commitment for inspections. This is an estimate from other cities with populations of 10- 20,000. Typically it is an environmental scientist doing this work. Administrative assistance from a consultant, city engineer or public works director is needed on top of that. Documentation is very important in this process. We can look at the time commitment the public works staff is currently spending on inspections, and if a specialist is needed for the tree inventory. In response to a question from Siakel, Hornby indicated this position could either be a contract position, a city employee, or a combination of the two. In response to a question from Joynes, Hornby indicated the person would need to know MS4 requirements. He thought the salary would be in the $55 -70K range, and the type of person would be, for example, an environmental scientist. Zerby said he would like to investigate the addition of an administrative assistant in public works. He has had issues raised by residents on parks, trails, water, etc, and he thinks more back office support is needed to address these issues. He would also like to see the GIS system expanded to more work stations and on- line. Hotvet would like consideration of hiring an outside resource to conduct a feasibility study /cost - benefit analysis on specifically on how the cities of Tonka Bay, Excelsior, and Shorewood can work together on public works functions. Woodruff indicated support for Brown to review his position and identify items that don't require an engineering degree which could done by an administrative assistant, such as completing reports to the state, which would provide Brown more time to focus on other key items, such as storm water management requirements, or other critical. functions. Siakel agreed with investigating additional administrative help for public works. She noted that what Hotvet is suggesting in relation to cooperative efforts with the other cities, and conducting a cost - benefit analysis with the other cities is above and beyond the evaluation of Shorewood public works staffing needs. With regards to looking at a cooperative effort with the other cities, she agrees it is logical and pragmatic, but there is an emotional component that gets problematic. She feels if the city were to consider this effort, Excelsior would be the most likely city to focus on in this effort. 10. Diseased Tree Programs Joynes stated that Council has already discussed the staffing needs relating to diseased trees, and asked Nielsen to provide an overview on how other cities are approaching diseased trees and what our issues are. Nielsen indicated the tree inventory has been completed. The one piece that he is uncomfortable with is the Freeman Park portion of the inventory. This area was estimated, but it holds the bulk of the ash tree population. Nielsen would like Council to consider hiring or contracting with a professional forester to look specifically at Freeman Park, to determine how many trees are actually there. The tree inventory shows approximately 2700 ash trees in 53 acres, if that is accurate, he would like to know what should be done with that. In the last year or two, cities have jumped on the treatment bandwagon. At City Hall and in Silverwood Park, there are some nice ash trees that likely could be treated. The current thought is to remove smaller trees, as it is cheaper to remove a 4" tree vs. 12" tree. If you put something in its place, in about 10 years, you would have something else growing where the smaller trees were removed. This also spreads out the cost of this project. He questioned if public works could do some of that work, or if it should be a contracted service. Nielsen will be meeting with a landscaper to get a price on what they would charge to remove smaller trees. He noted this is good winter work to remove these trees, and there are a lot of guys available to do this if we contract out this work. If 2/3 of the trees in Freeman Park are ash; we are looking at a 10 -year period of cutting 20% every other year; and reforest in- between. It will likely be controversial and people will not like it. He asked for Council input on what role public works would have and/or a contractor. He stated that Excelsior has a forester, and he talked to someone in Minnetonka Beach regarding a cooperative effort with ash borer. The city of Minnetonka has an in -house forester. Woodruff stated we need a program and he would like to see us write an RFP to see what response we get. Siakel noted that in looking at this from a larger perspective, she wonders if we have an arborist, could we offer residents this service for diagnosis. Hotvet agreed that offering this service to residents would be beneficial, Nielsen stated an advisory service like this could fit in whether it was someone who was hired or if it was a contract with someone. Woodruff agreed that residents could use this service as a resource for evaluation of their situation for a fee, but he doesn't want the city to get involved with tree removal. Nielsen stated he was referring to removing trees in public right of way. He also discussed an option to offer the homeowner whose property abuts the right -of -way where a diseased tree exists to treat the tree for a fee if they really didn't want it cut, or the city would cut and replace the tree. July 14, 2014 City Council Work Session Administrator Joynes explained staff has identified three optional things .identified during the February 8, 2014, Council and staff retreat that would impact the 2015 budget. The first is the proposed Public Works support /forester .75 FTE position. The assumption is there will be a SSCC operating budget deficit based on the current level of operations. That deficit could be increased by approximately $45,000 if Council chose to have a full -time coordinator on site at the SSCC. Staff has spent a significant amount of time developing the SSCC Capital Improvement Program (CIP). If Council accepts the SSCC CIP and the need to purchase the new trail plowing equipment, then the transfer to the Equipment Fund needs to be increased to $150,000 from $75,000. If that is done going forward, then the City will be able to fund the improvements that will be necessary to maintain the SSCC facility out through 2030. Administrator Joynes explained the primary duties of the proposed public works support position would be City forester, the creation of a diseased tree program, help and consultation on tree and foliage related issues when trails are constructed and roadways are reconstructed, developing a program for the emerald ash borer issue, and possibly providing residents with consultation on personal distressed tree issues. The secondary responsibilities would be related to stormwater management, MS4 (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System) requirements and survey work. The position would relieve WSB from doing some of that work. The position could provide community contact to residents on private property issues that are public works in nature. Response times to residents would be improved. The position would be a .75 FTE position. The person hired to fill that position would likely have some of the skills the City would want but would have to grow into the rest of the job. He expressed confidence that there are forester people who would do that. It would be a person who would interested in getting into environmental issues. The salary and appropriate benefits for that .75 FTE position would be approximately $64,000. Approximately 50 percent of the proposed position could be funded out of a combination of the Stormwater Management Fund (MS4 related activities), the Street Reconstruction Fund (dealing with trees and foliage as part of roadway improvements), the Trail Fund (dealing with trees and foliage as part of trail constriction) and possibly user fees (for private consultation). The other 50 percent would be funded out of the General Fund (i.e., general property taxes); the impact on the general tax levy would be about $30,000. Councilmember Hotvet stated she likes what is being proposed and that the City has a lot of needs. She asked how a .75 FTE position was arrived at. She also asked why a person would apply for a .75 FTE position. Administrator Joynes stated he knows there are a two people who would apply for the position because it is a .75 FTE and they would be good candidates. A major part of the reason for it being a .75 FTE is logistical; where will that person be stationed. There is discussion about sharing office space. A full -time position would be a larger problem for the City to accommodate. Joynes noted he thinks that the position is clearly a full -time job. And that the job will generate more public use. Staff may eventually ask that the position be changed to full -time. The .75 position will address the issues raised at the retreat. Councilmember Siakel stated the concept for the proposed position is good. She then stated she thought the Building Official was trained on diseased trees. She asked how diseased trees and stormwater management tie together. She thinks it is disjointed. Administrator Joynes stated there are people who have more of an environmental approach to things. They may have a degree in forestry or hydrology. He noted that he thought it would be possible to Lind a person that is a talented forester who wants to get involved in things other than just forestry. He explained that the other things the person would be involved with are not terribly complicated; they do not require an engineering degree. It will require an interest in doing other things. The person would be trained to take on those other functions over time. He thought what is being proposed is an economical approach to satisfying a number of needs the City has. The number of hours WSB consults for the City could be reduced because some of the less skilled needs could be transferred to the new position. Mayor Zerby stated there is definitely a need for help in Public Works and that tree diversification is becoming more important. He noted that the gypsy moth is headed this way from the east coast and it will go after oak trees. Councilmember Woodruff stated the Street Reconstruction Fund and the Trail Fund are taxpayer funded. Therefore, 75 percent of the position would be funded out of taxpayer dollars. He commented that at some point he would like to discuss user fees. Administrator Joynes stated the specifies of that would be discussed in the fall. Councilmember Sundberg stated she supports the proposed position and noted that she thinks staff will come back soon and ask to make it a full -time position. She then stated she thought the person who fills that position would be helpful to the City's residents on a variety of things such as invasive plants and wetland regulations. She thinks there are people who are environmentalists at heart. She went on to state there are a lot of intersections in the City where trees and shrubs are starting to limit visibility. She asked if that position would be responsible for addressing that. Administrator Joynes stated that is a forestry problem and a Public Works site line problem. Councilmember Siakel asked if that means the City will look for someone with an environmental background. Administrator Joynes stated at least a background in forestry or hydrology or plant life and with a willingness to learn and expand their knowledge base. Councilmember Woodruff stated he is okay with the first option and suggested budgeting for a full -time Public Works support person but possibly hiring a .75 person. Administrator Joynes stated that can be created as an option. CITY OFSHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 2014 MINUTES CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 6:02 P.M. A. Roll Call 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. Present. Mayor Zerby; Councitmernbers I-lotvet, Siakel, Sandberg, and Woodruff, Administratol, Joynes; Finance Director DeJong,- and Director of Public Works Brown Absent: None B. Review Agenda Hotyet moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 510. 2. 2015 BUDGET DISCUSSIONS Administrator Joynes stated staff has refined some of the numbers in the draft 2014 General Fund Budget based on the discussion during Council's July 14, 2014, work session. During that meeting he told Council the City could accomplish, for the most part, all of the items that were discussed during the February 2014 Council and staff retreat. Joynes reviewed the 2015 General Fund budget assumptions. The budget reflects one additional staff position that would have responsibility for forestry activities and be a water resource coordinator to help deal with future Municipal Separate Stoma Sewer System (MS4) mandates and stoiniwater management. The hope is that by having such a position, over time the City can reduce its reliance oil contract enginceritig services. It assumes continued contracted engincer and administrator services, It includes a salary reserve of 2.5 percent, Labor contract negotiations will begin in September. Southshore Community Center (SSCC) operations costs and capital costs are included in the budget. The purchase of trail plowing equipment has been, programed into the budget. There is no levy limit in place for 2015. He stated that in general terms revenues are estimated to increase to 55,513,878; an increase, of 1.3 percent, The estimated expenditures total $5,642,863; an increase of 1.7 percent. That leaves all unfunded gap of $128,985. During Council's July 14 ineeting there was discussion about using General Fund reserves to fund the gap. He explained the General Fund reserves are estimated to be $3,577,080 at the end of 2014. The General Fund Balance Policy requirement of 60 percent maximum reserve level based on that estimate is $3,385,718. That results in 5171,362 of excess reserves. Staff has recommended the use of $128,985 of those excess reserves to fund the budget gap, That leaves $40,301 in unallocated excess reserves for 2015. It leaves approximately $1.2 million above the reserve level recommended by the Office of the State Auditor (OSA). During the July 14 meeting Council and staff talked about eliminating the 3 percent transfer cap from the Policy. What has been recommended still adheres to that cap. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MpTCING MINUTES August 11, 2014 Page 3mf5 lot of capital investment is made in the SSCC. She noted she said the same thing about the SSCC last year and she continues to think the same. Conzciboeobor Qnodborg stated that she thought Cmzuciliuemher Siukel brought up good issues. She then stated that continuing to contract for administrator and uzQioerr services might be One for tile short torzu. £}nt' she thought b prudent to start to think ubuut.succession pluooiu& sooner versus later. She noted that she would like to gain a better understanding of what the forester/ water resource coordinator would be responsible for. She stated it inay be better to conts act for those services. C000ciboeoibor l{otvet 000nooed in principal with Cuoucibuezober Sioko|`o and Coonni6ueuher SuudhccA`moozouzeota. She stated there has been one year ofthe 1000-year storm. She thought Public Works was a little shorthanded because of having to detail with. the darnagc and issues caused by that and dzene0)r* other tasks did not got done as quickly as people would have wanted. She suggested that the proposed new position should provide more support to Public Works in that area. She noted that she is not ready to set a levy quite yet� She also rioted that what has been proposed ixu good start. Conooiluezuber Woodruff stated he would like staff to provide opoei1iou description for the proposed new position before he signs off ou d. He asked staff to also provide u year one vvndk plan for that position with upouifioo6|eotivex^ goals, tasks and dates, Mayor Zerby stated based on resident feedback he thinks the proposed position is needed. More staff time needs to be spent on trues and water resource coordination. lie noted that bo agrees itneeda to be defined and that will be part uf the process. He also noted be is comfortable leaving it in the budget. Be stated he would like Lo hear more about o contracted position versus o staff position, Coouuilmmobor Siukcl stated once tire City hires ourue*oe it is committed to another enzVloyoc, She then stated n broader understanding nf staff iu general and where the proposed position [ho in n/oo]d be valuable. She noted that she does think there would be value innddirrg a position to provide more support, She stated if the City had. 000rborioton staff then she viewed the City charging for that service. 3iukml asked what thoapproximate $129.000 in reserves will be used to hnd, It is for the snow plow, the ricw position and the SSCCY Administrator Joyoon responded dix for all ofthat. Administrator Joyuea stated that in the history he is aware of the City has ul`xuyu beaten its omtiznuteo to the good. IF the City under spends or takes io more revenue than projected tbeGeouml Fund reserves will increase again in20}5. Administrator Joyuoo explained there is ajoh description for the new position. The prime task would be. forestry services — diseased tree, pco8ruma., being the contact pccaoo for trail construction and road construction as they relate to vegetation, and advisory acrvi^oa related totrees. The second priority task would be vro1ex n:nonroo coordination. There will be o lot of survey vvudc that has to be done regarding voUuudz work that does not take the skills oforegistered cuginccx. The person will also be on assistant fbc}iurBro^u. There are u lot of on the spot needs that come tip requiring ho\o from Public Works, When that bupyoom that tends to ioumeaau the raoyuoux time to residents who have contacted Public Works. Staff cuvieioria that person taking on that public contact. He noted that staff originally proposed a .75 FTE to start with until staff can get a better handle on what the demands are. He also noted lie will provide Council with a job description for die position for its August 25meeting. C0000ilmembnzGiakd suggested maybe contracting for that work for at least tke first six months to see how it. works out. She stated she wants tu make -.tirmitia the correct decision for the City, CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MTNITTES August 11, 2014 Page 4 of 5 Administrator Joynes stated the costs for contracting would be a. littl c higher than hiring a person. Councilmember Woodruff stated the work plan for the position would identify specific work goals for that person. He clarified that the position would not be a land surveyor, The City has needs for a storrawater inspection. person to help address some of the upcoming storinwater management state and federal mandates. There will be a lot of records that will have to be kept for that. Mayor Zerby stated there is back office work that needs to be done in Public Works. For example, landscaping standards, stormwater drainage and parks maintenance. Zerby then stated the 2013/2014 season was a record season with regard to snow and ice control. Yet the 2014 projected year end expense does not reflect exceeding the budget. Director DeJong stated it was a record year in terms of cold and salt prices. DeJong explained the 2015 budget is for an average year and that more has been spent on that this year to date than average. Based on discussions with Director Brown he thought the year end actual amount will be close to budget. Councilinember Sundberg asked. when Council last discussed the City's compliment of staff, For example, the number of employees and what is getting done. She would like to know if the City is under staffed or over staffed or is it staffed appropriately. Mayor Zerby stated it has been a while, Sundberg suggested doing that before moving forward with the proposed position. Administrator Joynes noted the job descriptions were updated the beginning of 2013, Councilmember Sundberg stated she shares Councilmember Siakel's concern about bringing a staff member on when Council is a little tentative about that position. She noted she would be more comfortable bringing that person on in a consultant capacity even if it will cost a little more. That would give Council more time to assess the current staffing compliment, Mayor Zerby asked if that would be something Council would do or would it hire a consultant to help with that effort. Councill-nember Sundberg stated her knee jerk reaction is to hire an outside firm that is experienced in municipal government, Zerby asked Sundberg if she wanted to include funding for that in the 2015 budget. Councilniember Woodruff stated he thought that would be a useful activity. He then stated the low end of the level of reserves specified in the General Fund Balance Policy is 55 percent. Going down to 55 percent would free up additional reserves for use, Woodruff then stated the City has a person dedicated to SSCC operations and if the City changes what it is doing with the SSCC that person may not be needed at the SSCC and maybe there, is not a need for one staff person. He clarified he is not suggesting getting rid of a person. Councilmember Sundberg stated she is still in a personal quandary about what to do with the SSCC. She noted a high school group did some research on other community centers. She suggested getting someone with deeper expertise to guide Council in making a decision about the SSCC. Councilmember Siakel stated the financial cost for the SSCC always falls on Shorewood. She then stated the real issue to her is to what. level the other SSCC co-owners' are willing to participate in. Those cities need to make a decision about participation. If they do not want to participate, then Shorewood needs to pursue all of its options. It will be up to the City Attorney to make recommendations on what the options are, CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, AUGUST 25, 201.4 MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:€10 P.M. Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. A. Roll Cali Present. Mayor Zerby; Councihnembers I-Iotvet and Siakel; Attorney Keane; City Administrator Joynes; City Clerk Panchyshyn; Planning Director Nielsen; Director of Public 'Works Brown; and City Engineer Hornby Absent: Counc'rJmembers Sundberg and Woodruff; ;=Finance Director DeJong B. Review Agenda Administrator Jaynes asked that Item I O.B Adopting the Preliminary General Fund. Budget and Tax Levy and Item 10.0 Selection of the Truth-in.-Taxation Hearing Date be moved to Council's September 8, 2014, regular meeting agenda. The work session that had been scheduled for immediately before this meeting had been cancelled because Councilmembers Sundberg and Woodruff were not going to be in attendance. I?uring the work session there was going to be additional discussion about the proposed forester t environmental specialist position before the preliminary Budget was adopted. He noted the State of Minnesota has changed its rule about when maximum tax levies have to be certified by. The new date for certification of the City's maximum tax levy is now September- 30; it used to be September 15. Zerby moved, approving the agenda as amended. Councilmember Siakel asked why the maximum levy cannot be set because Council discussed a maximum levy of 2.5 percent. Administrator Jaynes explained there had been questions about whether the proposed position should be full time or a 0.75 full tirne equivalent (FTIE) position. There are some issues coming up. For example, earlier in the day he forwarded to Council South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLM.PD) Chief Litsey's Stipp lemental Traffic Enforcement Proposal. 'The cost for that has not been included in the preliminary 201.5 Budget. Siakel seconded, Motion passed 3 /0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Work Session Minutes, August 11, 2014 Siakel moved, Havet seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Minutes of August 11, 2014, as presented. Motion passed 310. B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, August 11, 2014 CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 201.4 MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor Zerby caticd the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M. A. Roll Call 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5:30 P.M. Present, Mayor Zerby; Councilmetribers Hotvet, Siakel, and Woodruff.-, Administrator Joynes; City Clerk Panchyshyn; Planning Director Nielsen; Director of Public Works Brown; and, City Engineer Hornby Absent: Councilmernber Sundberg B. Review Agenda Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 2. 201.5 GENERAL FUND BUDGET A. Forester/Enviroumental Specialist Position Description Administrator Joynes noted the meeting packet contains a copy of the draft Job description for the proposed new Forester / Environmental Specialist for the City as well as a copy of the projected 2015 — 2017 work program for that position, The Job description and work program are based on discussions Council and staff had during the February 8, 2014, Council and staff retreat and the July 14, 2014, Council work session (excerpts from meeting minutes for those meetings were included in the packet). Joynes recapped the 2015 General Fund Operating Budget (the Budget) assumptions. The Budget reflects one additional staff position that would have responsibility for forestry activities, and be a water resource coordinator to help deal with future Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) mandates, storillwater management activities and other activities. There is full-time funding for it in the Budget. Staff has recommended starting with a .75 full-time equivalent (FTE) position. The Budget assumes continued contracted engineer and administrator services. It includes a salary reserve of 2.5 percent. Southshore Community Center (SSCC) operations costs for the current level of service and capital costs are included in the Budget, The purchase of trail plowing eqiiipment has been programed into the Budget. There is no levy limit in place for 2015. He explained that in general terms revenues are estimated to increase to $5,513,878; an increase of 1.3 percent, The estimated expenditures total $5,642,863; an increase of 1.7 percent. That leaves all unfunded gap of $128,985, Staff has proposed using General Fund reserves to fund the gap. General Fund reserves are estimated to be $3,577,080 at the end of 2014. Based on the General Fund Balance Policy maximum reserve level requirement of 60 percent the required reserve level is estimated to be $3,385,718. That results in $1.71,362 of excess reserves. Staff has recommended using $128,985 of those excess reserves to fund the Budget gap, That leaves $40,301 in unallocated excess reserves for 2015. He reviewed the major expenditure changes for 2015. City Council salaries were increased by a total of $5,400. Administrative support at the reception desk / counter was increased by $11,200 for part-time help at the counter. The Hennepin County Assessor has notified the City that their fees are going up CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES September 8, 2014 Page 2 of 10 $4,000, Police services are projected to have a net increase of $22,571 in 2015, Fire services are proposed to increase $9,833. The Public Works expense portion of that new full-time position is estimated to cost $55,000 including benefits. Another portion of that salary will be charged to stormwater rrianagernent activities. There will be a $30,000 increase in the transfer into equipment and streets for 2015 and subsequent years. That helps fund the trail plow and improvements to the SSCC capital improvement program (CIP). The aesthetic upgrades identified for the SSCC in the Cove Proposal were estimated at about $40,000. Money for that is not included in the 201.5 Budget. The approximate $40,000 in excess reserves could be used to fund that. Joynes noted all of what he has mentioned and what is included in the detail Budget spreadsheets amounts to a 2 percent levy increase, He recommended Council certify a maximum levy of 2,5 percent to Hennepin County by September 30, That additional .5 percent would provide an approximate additional $26,000 should something unknown come tip before the final Budget is adopted in December. He explained that since the last discussion about the Budget a couple of things have come up. The traffic enforcement proposal Council requested from the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) indicates that an additional 20 hours per month of traffic enforcement services would cost about $16,000 annually. The City has heard from Gallagher and Associates that the health care costs will go tip about 25 — 28 percent for 2015. There was an approximate 18 percent decrease for 2014. He noted that Council has two more meetings in which to certify its inaximurn tax levy to Hennepin County by September 30 -- September 8 and September 22. The adoption of the Preliminary 2015 General Fund Operating Budget and the maximum tax levy as well as setting in the Truth in Taxation hearing date are on the agenda for Council's meeting following this meeting. Mayor Zerby asked if the City would be able to collect any revenue from traffic enforcement citations. Director Nielsen stated some of that revenue from traffic enforcement is available but the City Code would have to be amended to allow that. Administrator Joynes noted the revenue from speeding tickets is primarily taken by the County and the State. Municipalities get very little of that revenue, Zerby stated lie thought some cities were collecting revenue from that. Joynes clarified that some cities have gone to something less than a speeding ticket and were then able to get revenues from that. But, that was controversial. Zerby stated lie thought it would be worth exploring to help offset the additional enforcement costs. Councili-nember Woodruff stated it is his understanding that there is a limitation on the amount of overage on the speed and the City probably would not get much from speeding tickets. There are other things such as parking tickets and failure to stop at a stop sign that that could generate some revenue. But, the City would have to take on responsibility for that administrative process. He then stated he is not sure what prosecution costs the City has to pay for a speeding ticket the SLMPD writes and where the revenue goes. He noted that lie believes the City needs the extra traffic enforcement. i-le does not like that the City has to pay extra for it but he understands the SLMPD mernber cities need to pay for extra policing services, Couticilmember Siakel stated the City clearly receives a lot of complaints about speeding. She expressed concern about the times of enforcement in the traffic enforcement proposal the City received. She questioned if the City needs to have additional speed enforcement at 6:00 A.M. Would doing that really address the concerns of residents in various areas in the City? Mayor Zerby stated it is his understanding that City staff would be the point person for the additional enforcement. The SL MPT) would work with the City on hours and locations. He thought there would be flexibility. CITY OF SHORE" OOD WORK SESSION MEETINGS MINUTES September 8, 2014 Page 3 of 10 Councilmember Siakel stated when SLMPD Chief Litsey was before Council for the SLMPD 2015 Budget lie told Council that it would work best for the officers if they could start their shifts earlier or extend their shift to cover the enforcement hours, Before their shift meant starting at 6:00 A.M. and after their shift would be later in the evening. She questioned if those times would really satisfy the City's needs. Administrator Joynes stated lie did not think the times were concrete, They were Chief Litsey's suggestion because it would be the easiest for the officers to come in earlier or extend their shifts to provide the additional enforcement. He understands that way would be the easiest. He is not convinced it has to be done that way. They money can be set aside and then the City can negotiate the extra hours. Councilmember Siakel stated if it were possible for the City to get some revenues from various types of traffic tickets that process has to be administered and it could be complicated. Mayor Zerby stated the City does have an administrative enforcement process and part; of that process allows a. person to come before an Administrative Enforcement Officer to appeal the fine. Director Nielsen explained if a person appeals the fine the City basically has to hold court on the appeal. Councilmember Woodruff asked what the dollar amount is for the 25 — 28 percent increase in health insurance costs. Administrator Jaynes stated the City currently pays $900 a month for dependent coverage. '171e City has typically increased its per - employee contribution by about $25 a year. It did not do that for 2014 because health insurance costs went down by 18 percent, A $25 increase for 15 employees equates to $375. The City may want to increase its contribution more, at least for some employees, because some of their insurance payments are going to tip 40 percent clue to their profile. Council will have to decide how much it wants to subsidize health insurance costs. Woodruff` then asked if the additional .5 percent in the levy will cover the costs. Joynes said it would. Woodruff stated he likes the position description for the proposed Forester I Environmental Specialist position. And, he likes the work program. But, there is nothing in the description about education or experience about stormwater responsibilities, He thought it prudent to have something about education and experience in the description. Administrator Joynes stated he is not sure if the City will be able to find a candidate with experience in two or three distinct areas. Staff does not think so. But, the City can train a person in the job over a two to three year time period. From his perspective the person will need to have a bachelor degree in forestry. A person can be trained to do some of the work for the MS4 mandates overtime. fie then stated he thinks there will be candidates that are really interested in the ,job but only have skills in one of the primary areas of responsibility. He noted staff will add some language about experience and education to the position description, Councilmember Woodruff stated if over the next few months Council and staff think there is some financial risk with the 2015 Budget then the position can be .75 FTE or the filling of that position could be delayed until the second quarter of 2015. He then stated from his perspective there is some really good work that the person needs to do that staff does not have the time and in some instances the skills to do today. Councilmember Siakel asked if that position would report to the City Administrator or the Director of Public Works. Council has discussed that the Public Works staff has too much work to do already. Administrator Joynes stated the intent all along was to provide the Director of Public Works with administrative support and that person will do those types of reports at the Director's direction. Other CffYOF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES &epumber8,%0l4 Page 4vy10 tasks for that position will be will be in essence managed by o management team with tho administrator having the final oversight. Counei|m:oabc, 8iukel asked what happened to the tree inventory p, '*cc She dn^o not recollect the results being presented to Council. Director Nielsen explained an inventory of the trees along the City's /modvvxya was cnmpletod. Efforts stopped when it came {n inventorying the trees in Freeman Park which is about 53 acres in size. About 70 percent of the (o:en in the Park are ash trees. When it came to developing a management plan for the Park the discussion of a forester came tip, A management plan for the Park could be done by a consultant f6rcater or an in-house [occyrcx. Nielsen noted the City could easily spend about $70,80Ou year cutting down ash trees. Mayor Zorhv stated there was mention of u possible cooperative ash hnnor effort with the City of Minnetonka Beach. He asked if asked if staff has any more information on that, Director Nielsen stated ho thinks Minnetonka Bouob has gone with u uonou|tont Fnruoto'. Zer6y asked if the City of Excelsior mdD has its own fb/exh:r. Nielsen responded lie does not know. Zerby then stated -from his perspective he thought it may be possible to hire a i i on-staff person to run the SSCC iuu bigger way that has ubnokgrounJ in education and event planning, And, they could be hired for m lower cost than what has been pr Jeon;d for full-time person. He explained he has looked into au]mi*o for people who run community centers and lie has spoken with people involved with tbom and lie thinks hiring someone with more specialized experience and at cheaper rate is achievable. C000ci|rnamber Oiokc} stated uyour ago the City was in the xom* place of unknown with regard tothe other four 8SCC co-owners' pxr6uipotjVo in foodiug the S8CC. There are some capital improvements that need tohemadoto the S3CC. The other four cities need to decide if they are in or out and then the CUvuecduto make a decision about what is next, . Mayor Ze,hv stated [bcpropoxod2Ol5 Budget anuumee tile City will provide the same level ofservices for SSCC operations as it in providing this year, 'File Park & >uoroo1inn Coordinator will continue to inost of her time tothe OSCC. The Budget also ino}udea $11,200 for temporary backup help at the front desk in City Hu|}. Administrator Joyueo stated the 20|5 Budget provides the City the opportnniryto continue m operate the 88CC under the current system. He then stated given bmv long it will take to push dbvvuob obuuD*a related to the structure and ownership of the SBCC he advised Council to at least budget for providing the current level of services. It will take at least to the end of this year and more realistically into next year to get that resolved. Once that is resolved Council can change bmvv the S8CC is ^y:ru1e4 and what the personnel requirements nre. He oucui000d against obuogiug it before that is resolved. He noted it is anticipated there needs to he over $300,000 in lmprmvmueo(o mmdoho the SSCC over time. Mayor ZurhYexpressed hesitancy about putting more hours towards ocodo xt the front desk. 3~ BADGER PARK Director Nielsen stated during the May 27' 2014, 'oint meodnQ of the Council and Park Commission Council asked staff \o develop uConcept \.5 for Badger Park improvements tn address concerns Council had with the Concept l and Concept 2. /\ copy of Concept 1.5 drawing was included in the namoUog packet. Nielsen explained one of the oouum,nn about Concept ) is d/e parking !pi ended tip terminating and having to circulate under the canopy at the Soutbnboro Community Center (S8CC). In Concept 1.5 tbe parking lot has been redesigned to create turn-around south of the canopy making it possible for traffic to CITY OF SHOREMOOD 0 .0 i i Ci7:�7 iT�lll ��fi/�►i17 l ' Public Works • Engineering Director of • Works Provides Forester program services, including the diseased tree program; assists with the city's NPDES /MS4 program; provides technical and administrative support for the Public Works /Engineering Departments. ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS OF THE POSITION A. Provides Forester Services 1. Recommends, implements and monitors progress of long and short -range plans and goals regarding urban forestry programs such as the Tree Preservation and Reforestation Policy and the Diseased Tree Program, risk management, emergency preparedness, and forecasts potential program changes in order to adjust to changing circumstances. 2. Inspects trees on public property for quality, value, defects, pests, and mechanical damage; determines protective and corrective measures required for preventative maintenance measures; determines potential planting sites and type trees to plant based on assessed site conditions, soil tests, etc. Provides assistance in expertise and technical assistance to citizens, city staff, governmental units, and other outside agencies on matters of concern regarding city urban forestry issues. 4. Prepares and coordinates public education programs related to urban forest management principals such as Tree City USA, Arbor Day and Earth Day and represents City in presenting programs to government commissions, city advisory committees, civic groups, volunteer groups, schools, private developers and others. DRAFT Sept. 8; 2014 Work Session B. Assist the City with Compliance National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 1. Operational -level work in the field of environmental compliance within NPDES regulations (MS4, Construction, and Industrial Permits). 2. Provide a variety of tasks relating to the administrative, technical and operational requirements of the Clean Water Act; and compliance with the provisions of Section 402. 3. Responsible for administration, review and compliance of numerous local and state codes regulating Stormwater quality, construction activity, and related assignments within the City's jurisdiction. 4. Site inspection, water quality sampling activity and pollutant evaluation work. C. Provides General Support for Public Works and Engineering 1. Assists the Director of Public Works and City Engineer in responding to residents, contractors, and other members of the public regarding issues directly related to Public Works or Engineering issues. 2. Assist the Director of Public Works and City Engineer in records management including files, electronic files. EDUCATION and /or EXPERIENCE Requires a Bachelor's Degree from an accredited college or university in Urban Forestry, Forestry, or related field plus at least three (3) years of increasingly responsible supervisory and /or project management work experience directly related to urban forest management activities. A graduate degree in one of the above fields may be substituted for one year of required work experience. Active membership in the International Society of Arboriculture and /or the Society of Municipal Arborists is preferred. OTHER KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND ABILITIES • Principles, methods, standards, procedures and techniques related to comprehensive management in the practice of urban arboriculture, forestry and horticulture including plant biology, taxonomy, anatomy and physiology and integrated pest management (IPM). • Working knowledge of municipal policies, operation, procedures and functions. • Requires strong communication skills and the ability to coordinate with multiple parties to comply with Stormwater regulations and water quality solutions. • Knowledge of correct English language usage, including grammar and spelling; visual proofreading skills. DRAFT 2 • Ability to read and interpret technical documents, regulations and procedure manuals. • Utilizes effective communicate skills both verbally and in writing with elected officials, supervisors, other employees and the general public. • Ability to prepare routine reports and correspondence. • Experience with computer operations and proficient use of Microsoft Office (Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, etc) and capable of learning other software programs as required. In compliance with the American With Disabilities Act the following represents the Physical and Environmental Demands: The position requires an equal amount of time spent standing, walking, and sitting. Lifting, pushing /pulling, or carrying objects weighing up to thirty (30) pounds is required. Climbing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, crawling, twisting, and bending are sometimes required. Repetitive movements of the hands are required. Audio, visual, and verbal functions are essential functions to performing this position. Specific vision abilities required by this job include close vision, color vision, and the ability to adjust focus. Also must understand safety policies and actively promote safe practices in the workplace, based on annual safety training. DRAFT 3 Work Program Forester/ Environmental Specialist Forestry: Develop and Implement: Tree Preservation and Reforestation Policy Diseased Tree Program Advisory Tree services Program (private property) (0.25 FTE) Advise on Park Maintenance Standards Policy Public Works: Documentation and Inspection of Storm Water Basins and Wetland Basins: Under the new storm water requirements, the City is to compile a database of all of the storm water basins, determine the designed volume of storage, measure current sedimentation and volume, and document the condition of each inlet and outlet for the basin. (0.25 FTE) Public Works: Administrative Support and Citizen Contact {0.25} izsra Forestry: Administer Emerald Ash Borer Program Create a public education campaign for Urban forestry management Continue Resident Advisory Program Advise City and Residents on impacts of pending construction projects Public Works: MS4 Requirements Perform annual Best Practices Inspections Continue data base creation and update Respond and educate on known and illicit discharge occurrences Public Works: Administrative Support and Citizen Contact ew Forestry: Continue above programs and advise on other issues as assigned. Public Works: Continue MS4 compliance activities Continue Administrative Support Activities Other duties as assigned Sept. 8, 2014 Work Session CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL WORD SESSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2014 MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL. CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Siakel, Sundberg, and Woodruff; Administrator Joynes; City Clerk Panchyshyn; Finance Director DeJo ng; Director of public Works Brown; and City .Engineer I- lornby Absent: Councilmernber Hotvet B. Review Agenda Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 4 /0. 2. FINAL GENERAL FUND BUDGET REVIEW Administrator Joynes noted the meeting packet contains a copy of the PowerPoint presentation for the December 1, 2014, Truth -in- Taxation nearing for the City of Shorewood 2015 Budget as well as related General Fund budget documents. He explained there was one substantive thing that has changed since Council's last budget related work session. The Excelsior Fire District (EFD) recommended amended 2015 Operating Budget and 2015 - 2035 Capital .Improvement Program (C1P) were approved by all five member cities. The amended budget included an agreement to return some of t:he excess operating fu ►ad reserves to the member cities. Shorewood share of those funds will be $11,500, That will be put into the General Fund and the City's 2015 General Fund Budget reflects that. From his perspective the Budget is virtually the same as the 2014 Bridget. It includes a 2.5 percent increase in personnel services costs. He has not concluded negotiations with the Public Works employees union. represented by Ak+SCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) Local 224. He is having difficulty getting a second meeting with the union scheduled. He continues to be relatively confident that the 2.5 percent increase will be adequate. The Bridget includes the addition of a 0.75 FTE (full time equivalent) forester and public works assistant, Approximately $55,000 of the cost for that position is included in the Public Works Budget and the remainder is in the Stornlwater Management Bridget. The transfers into the Equipment Replacement Fund and the Street Reconstruction Fund have been increased by a collective a►nount of $30,000. The General Fund Budget reflects that. He noted the meeting packet contains a copy of a. General Fund Balance Available Calculation document. He also noted that earlier this year Council decided to eliminate the 3 percent transfer cap fi•om the CITY Or SHORE'VdOOD WORK SESSION Ni:ii;t"i'ING MINUTES 5 November 24, 2014 Page 2 of 5 General Fund Balance Policy for reserves in excess of 60 percent, He reviewed the document. If the Policy requirement of a 60 percent maximum reserve level is used., the reserves in excess of that level is estimated to be $533,534 at the end of 2014. That amount is unencumbered and it can be used for anything Council would like. He suggested discussing how to use that money during the January 28, 2015, Council and staff retreat. He stated that 60 percent level is very conservative. If the Office of the State Auditor (OSA) methodology were to be used, which is the one the State recommends, there would be $1,593,540. That is a 50 percent reserve of expenditures and it uses transfers out in a different fashion. He noted he thought the City is in very good shape financially. Joynes walked through the draft presentation for the Truth-in.-Taxation hearing. There is a legal requirement for the City to hold a Truth -in- Taxation public hearing. It is scheduled for December 1, 2014, The Truth -in- Taxation requirements are to present the City's 2015 General Operating Budget:, discuss the budget and 2015 tax levy changes, to take public comment and to adopt a balanced budget. The City's portion of the property taxes pay for a number of services funded out of the General Fund. They include police and fire protection; street: and park maintenance; recreation programs; building inspections; transfers to the Soutlisbore Community Center (SSCC) and capital funds; and, administration, finance, planning and zoning, elections, an.d other miscellaneous services. The assumptions used in preparing the 2015 Operating Budget are as follows ➢ A 2.5 percent tax levy increase is included (the second increase since 2009) for general. operations (primarily personnel costs). ➢ A 0.75 FTE forestry position has been added. ➢ Other staffing levels remain the same. ➢ A 2.5 percent salary increase is budgeted for to fund salary increases and benefit changes. ➢ Transfers to the Street Improvement Fund and the Equipment Replacement fund were increased by 3.75 percent (or $30,000) collectively. ➢ The use of $93,192 in General Fund balance reserves is included to balance the Budget, That is down $9,656 from 2014. The City's General Fund .Balance Policy stipulates maintaining a reserve level of 55 -60 percent of the upcoming year's operating expenditures. The December 31, 2013, General fund .Reserve was $3,943,342 and it is estimated that $23,850 of that will be used in 2014. It's estimated that the 2014 year -end General Fund Reserve will be $3,919,492 (or 69.5 percent). The Policy maximum of 60 percent: would. equate to $3,385,718. Therefore, the amount in excess based on the Policy is $533,774. If the reserves are higher than 60 percent the available excess reserves may be used for it:erns such as one -tinte projects, acquisitions, or transfers to any City capital fund. The City's General Fund budgeted expenditures total $5,643,263, Of those expenditures 38 percent is for public safety services (police and fire), 22 percent is for general government services, 18 percent is for public works, 17 percent is for capital transfers and 4 percent is for parks and recreation. Expenditures and transfers have been fairly consistent with some tips and downs between 2007 and 2015. The City's General Fund budgeted revenues total $5,549,671. Of those revenues 89 percent is from property taxes, 4 percent is from transfers and miscellaneous revenues, 2 percent is from licenses and permits, 2 percent is from General. fund balance reserves, I percent is from charges for services, 1. percent is from fines and forfeitures, and I percent is from intergovernmental, CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES November 24, 2014 Page 3 of 5 The tax assessment and levy timeline for residential property taxes payable in 2015 has been as follows, Hennepin County collected data on property sales from October 1, 2012 — September 30, 2013, The market value was established on January 2, 2014. The Board of Review process to hear appeals took place from April 2014 -- June 2014. The City certified its maximum tax levy of 2.5 percent for 2015 to Hennepin County in September 2014. The levy cannot be increased after that; it can be decreased, The County mailed out Truth -in- Taxation notices to property owners in November 2014, The Truth-in- Taxation hearing is being held this evening. In 2015 final property tax bills will be mailed to property owners. The properties in the City experienced all average increase in value of 6.6 percent, That decline was about. 1.5 years ago. The average City tax impact is as follows. For a property valued at $250,000 in 2014 its value increased to $266,500 for 2015, and the tax increased by $16. For a property valued at $375,000 in 2014 its value increased to $399,750 for 2015, and the tax increased by $21, For a property valued at $500,000 in 2014 its value increased to $533,000 for 2015, and the tax increased by $44, For a property valued at $750,000 in 2014 its value increased to $799,500 for 2015, and the tax increased by $55. For a property valued at $1 million in 2014 its value increased to $1,066,000 for 2014, and the tax increased by $67. 'That will be different depending on the individual property value. The 2015 property tax distribution for a property in the City located within Minnetonka. School District 276 is: 35.2 percent to the school district, 35.1 percent to Hennepin County, 22.5 percent to the City, and 7,2 percent to other smaller taxing jurisdictions. It is based on a ]ionic in the District valued at $360,000. The 2015 total property tax percent change compared to the 2014 total tax for residential homestead properties in the City based on statistics from the Hennepin County Assessor's Office is as follows. Approximately 35,0 percent of the parcels (812) will see a decrease. Approximately 33,2 percent of the parcels (768) will see an increase of $0 — $300, Approximately 103 percent of the parcels (239) will see an increase of $301 -- $600. Approximately 7,0 percent of the parcels (162) will see an increase $601 -- $900, Approximately 14.5 percent of the parcels (335) will see an increase of more than $900. There are three tax relief prograrns available through Hennepin County and the State, There is a homestead credit refund which is based on income and taxes paid, That refund is available if taxes exceed 2 percent of income for household with income tip to $65,1109 and 2,5 percent for those over - $65,409 and below $105,500. There is a special property tax refund available if taxes increase more than 12 percent and the increase is over $100. There is a renter's refund for those with household income of $57,169 or less. Joyn.es noted that the meeting packet contains a copy of the Financial Management Plans (FMPs) for the Park improvement Fund, the Street Maintenance Fund and the Trail Construction Fur►d, Mayor Zerby stated the Street Maintenance Fund FMP graph is labeled 1. — 6 rather than years. He assumes the years should be 2014 -- 2019. Councilmernber Woodruff asked what month is year-to-date (YTT)) in the General Fund Budget Summary document, Director DeJong responded September 30, 2014. Woodruff stated that in the Administration Budget in line item Employee Insurance City Share the YTD arnount is zero, And for sortie of the other budgets the number the amounts are very low. He asked if something is not being posted correctly. DeJong stated the way the financial system was set up that is posting into the salaries directly so the total salary and benefits is coming out correctly. He asked DeJong if he is confident the health insurance numbers are in the totals someplace. DeJong responded yes. CI'T'Y OF ST- OREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES November 24, 2014 Page 4 of 5 Woodruff noted that in the Protective inspections Budget the heading for the 2014 YTD personal services expenses is labeled May 201.3, Director DeJong stated that is a typographical error and the numbers are okay. Woodruff stated that needs to be fixed. In response to a comment from Councilmeinber Woodruff about the a.ecuracy of the Trail Reconstruction Fund FMP, Administrator Joynes stated the I'MI's will not be shown to the public during the Truth -in- 'Taxation hearing. Counciltnernber Woodruff* stated it is his recollection that Council discussed budgeting for a full -time forester position with the understanding that it would start out as a 0.75 FTE position when first. hired. Administrator Joynes stated Council and staff discussed the position would likely evolve to full time but it would start out as a 0.75 FTE position. Councihnenlber Woodruff noted that the General Fund Balance Policy suggests a reserve level of 55 — 60 percent. Therefore, there may be more reserves available than discussed earlier, COUncilrnernber Siakel stated she is somewhat uncomfortable with approving the forester position, She would like to discuss the position snore. Before the City brings on another ernployee she wants to make sure there is a solid plan for how to utilize that person and what the expectations of that person would be. Council has talked about that position having forester, stormwater management and Public Works responsibilities. She suggested that item be added to the agenda for the January Council and staff retreat. Councilmember Woodruff concurred and asked that a general work plan lie provided for that position. Siakel then stated that she thought at a rninirnurn the City contract for seasonal work for tree services. She clarified she agrees there is a need for some of the services. But, she is not sure what that would look like for the City. She wants to have a clearer understanding of what the expectations are. She stated she can support leaving at least some of the funding for the position t:o ensure there are funds available for seasonal work in 2015. Councihnnernber Stindberg suggested leaving funding in as a placeholder and discussing it more during the retreat. Mayor Zerby stated the Trail Reconstruction Fund FMP includes an $852,000 capital iteni in 2018 and 2019. He asked what projects that is for. Director DeJong stated that is for the Strawberry Dane Trail and it should only be in 2019. Zerby noted that changes the FMP projection quite a bit, Couneilmember Woodruff stated that FMP does not include any capital expenditures for trail projects in 2015 or 2016. Mayor Zerby stated that during Council's November 10 work session Council indicated it would like prove forward with the Smithtown Road East Sidewalk Extension Project and to discuss the others during the January 28 Council and staff retreat.. Director DeJong stated that currently the plan is to construct the Smithtown Road 'East sidewalk extension and the Excelsior Boulevard Trail in 2015. There should be no trail projects in the FMP in 2016 — 2018. 'There is capital expense in the F1 \,fP for 2014 because the Smithtown Road West sidewalk was budgeted for in 201.3. 'I °here is a minor annount of actual expense incurred in 2014 for that sidewalk. Mayor Zerby stated Ire thought there is more money that could be used out of reserves provided the number presented is correct. He understands money is needed for the trail projects. He noted that he does not like to do what he is proposing, but he asked what additional amount of reserves would be needed to CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES Normnbm'24,20l4 Page 5 of 5 bring the levy increase down to% percent, Administrator Joyries stated every 0.5percent reduction takes about $35,000. %nrbvooced he could support using another $25,000 —$5O,000 in reserves in order to hhog the levy down based on the level of reserves staff said the City will hxvu. Conuoiimomhcr 8iakol supported increasing the use ofreserves to keep the levy increase lower. She said ovoo if and additional 350,000 were used that would still leave n lot of uuxUnooted reserves for the Smithtown Road Buot sidewalk extension based nn the numbers presented. Councilmember Woodru[fstatod he has board that the cost of living this your has gone up around 1.7 percent. Benoted that he thought utmx levy increase ofl.5-2.0 percent inappropriate, Councilmember Qiakel stated the City de/iversalot of value to its residents for the services provided, Based on the Troth-in-Toxuion notice she received the ncboo\ district and county take u aiAo\fi^and chunk of her tax payment. Administrator Joyuex stated staff will present a 1.5 percent, 2.0 percent and 2.5 percent tax levy ioorxuxe for December 1. Councilmember Sundberg asked where one-time expenditures such as the Green Energy study and the consultant for the Minnetonka Country Club redevelopment p 'mi got paid out ut Administrator /ovuos stated that study will be paid for out ofthe Community Infrastructure Fond, Staff has anticipated that the consultant will be paid for out of reservesand some portion of that will be charged back to the developer, Woodruff moved, 8nnU6erg seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session ^f November 24, 2014, at 6:35 P.M. Motion passed 4/0, RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder JeA Panchyshyn, City Clerk Se ' zcl'-by'-`411�90 CITY OF SHOREWOOD SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES December 1, 2014 Page 2 of 5 ➢ A. 0.75 full time equivalency forestry, stormwater analyst and Public Works assistant position has been added. The funding for the position is a placcholder. Council will discuss the position more during the January 28, 2015, Council and staff retreat. Other staffing levels remain the same as in 2014. > A 2,5 percent salary increase is budgeted for to fund salary increases and benefit changes. That is also a placcholder until negotiations with the Public Works employees union represented by AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) Local 224 are concluded. There is a second meeting with the union scheduled for later this week. Transfers to the Street Improvement, Fund and the Equipment Replacement Fund were increased by 3.75 percent (or $30,000) collectively. The use of $93,192 in General Fund balance reserves is included to balance the Budget. That is down $9,656 from 201.4. The reserves are the balance in the Fluid at the end of the year. General Fund reserves can be used for multiple things. The City does not receive its first. property tax revenues until June or July. Until they come the reserves are used to fund operating expenses. Reserves are also there for emergencies that might occur during the year. "I"hey also may be used for one-time projects, acquisitions or transfers to any City capital fluid. The level of reserves a city has influences its bond ratings. The ma jor bond rating agencies view a healthy reserve level as the primary indicator of what a city's bond rating is going to be, The City has a General Fund Balance Policy which stipulates the City maintain a reserve level of 55 -- 60 percent. That is calculated by multiplying tile upcoming year's budgeted operating expenditures by the percentage. Staff projects the 2014 year-end reserve level to be at 69.5 percent. 'That means there will be $533,534 in excess reserves at the end of 2014 based on the requirement Of maintaining a 60 percent maximum reserve level, The City's General Fund budgeted expenditures total $5,643,263. Of those expenditures 38 percent is for public safety services (police and fire), 22 percent is for general government services, 1.8 percent is for public works, 17 percent is for capital transfers and 4 percent is for parks and recreation, Expenditures and transfers have been fairly consistent with Some LIPS and downs between 2007 and 2015, The City's General Fund budgeted revenues total is $5,549,671. Of those revenues 89 percent is frorn, property taxes, 4 percent is from transfers and miscellaneous revenues, 2 percent is from licenses and permits, 2 percent is from General Fund balance reserves, I percent is from charges for services, I percent is from fines and forfeitures, and I percent is from intergovenunental. The tax levy was flat from 2010 through 2013. The tax assessment and levy timeline for residential property taxes payable in 2015 has been as follows. Hennepin County collected data on property sales in the Shorewood area -corn October 1, 2012 -- September 30, 2013. The market value was established on January 2, 2014. 'The Board of Review Process to hear appeals on property values took place from April 210 14 — June 2014. J'he County conducts that process at City 1-fall. The City certified its maximum tax levy increase of 2.5 percent for 2015 to Hennepin County in September 2014, The levy cannot be increased after that; it can be decreased. The County mailed out Truth-in-Taxation notices to property owners in November 2014. The Truth-in- Taxation hearing is being held this evening. The City certifies its tax levy to the County by the end of 2014, In 2015 final property tax bills will be mailed to property owners. The 2015 property tax distribution for a property in tile City located within Minnetonka School District 276 is; 35.2 percent to the school district, 35.1 percent to Hennepin County, 22,5 percelit to the City, and 72 percent to other smaller taxing jurisdictions. It is based on a home in the District. Valued at $360,000, Item #6 M City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Title / Subject: Pavement Management and Inventories Meeting Date: January 29, 2015 Prepared by: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works Reviewed by: Paul Hornby, City Engineer, Bruce DeJong, Finance Director Attachments: Pavement Ratings, Decision Matrix, Appendices Item #E MEETING TYPE Council —Staff Retreat Policy Consideration: How should the City manage the investment of pavement infrastructure? Background: Pavement is a key infrastructure that is a major investment for all municipalities. So much so, that most cities across the nation are trying to determine the most cost effective manner in which to maximize the service life and the investment of pavement structures, and how to finance improvements over the long haul. As stated by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WISDOT) "Pavement preservation is the planned strategy of cost - effective treatments to an existing roadway to extend the life or the serviceability of the pavement. It is a program strategy intended to arrest deterioration, regard progressive failure and improve the function or structural condition of the pavement." The goal is to maximize the return on the investment, while balancing F'qure One out issues of liability; all while o � QUALITY C?''M 75%Time providing a satisfactory surface -- condition that the users find 40% acceptable. of ° Drop 00 Lowest Annual Resurfacirut Cost The most expensive part of any W 1 elcl, sI.00 of pavement is the initial installation Asp ?b`litr ° g' -- ° Renovation Cost cost. Therefore maintaining d � ma g an o i o ; Here. vJsii Cost S4 to the structure " 40% ss'f °E'aved preserving pavement is far more cost effective than Road Deterioration Quality va Drop replacement. While the exact o Time costs in Figure One may change 12%Time Total Failure due to fluctuating market > conditions, the premise remains Years the same. Mission Statement. The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 Staff has chosen a tool known as the Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating ( PASER) system, to assist the City in compiling a pavement inventory and condition rating system. This system was developed by the Transportation Information Center of The University of Wisconsin. This system was chosen for several reasons: 1. This is a widely accepted tool that is used in both cities and counties. 2. This is a system that is easily understood by residents and other stake holders. Results can be examined in the field, versus some of the more "black box' techniques and analysis currently being utilized in other agencies. 3. As one City Engineer aptly noted, "Their City spent many thousands of dollars to have a technical firm bring very sophisticated evaluation equipment to rate every roadway; only to find out that after two to three frost seasons, the data was not useful because the frost cycles had taken a further toll on the substructure of the pavements. Utilizing a more simplistic evaluation process resulted in the same overall answer at a fraction of the cost." The PASER system is an evaluation system that helps the evaluator assign a numerical rating to a pavement ranging in values from 1 to 10, with the value of 10 being a new installation and a value of 1 being a pavement that has served its useful service life. While each numerical evaluation has more sophisticated technical pointers to assist the evaluator in assigning a value to a roadway, the cover shown in Figure 2 below from the manual depicts simplistic description of the system. Appendix 1 also includes a more detailed example for each numerical rating. :* ThIrrsportafrrrra tnf€arr »atrrar� C�ntc =t University of Wiscds8w, Madiron IMUlaw When the pavement inventory system was initiated several years ago, the City Council, at that time, opted to set a goal of keeping the pavements at a value of 4 or above. Roadways were reevaluated in the fall of 2014, and are attached to this report as Attachment 1. These ratings indicate that there are two roadways, Star Lane and Star Circle, which are below the rating of 4. These two roadways are currently under design for reconstruction in 2015. There are 13 other roadways that have a ranking of 4. These will have to be watched closely for maintenance, to insure that surface conditions provide adequate service for vehicles, bikers, and pedestrians. Once a roadway has been identified as needing maintenance or improvement, the decision must be made as to what type of improvement that is to be made. The following is a brief explanation of the methods currently used. Asphalt Sealcoat: This is the process of coating the top surface of the roadway with a water and oil emulsion and then placing a cover aggregate over the oil. While this process does not add structural strength to the pavement structure, it helps seal out water from cracks and restores traction to the surface. The City has typically sealcoated one fifth of the City per year. Bituminous Mill and Overlay: This is a process where the edge of the roadway is milled down at the edges, to match into existing driveways and maintain drainage, followed by placement of an 1.5 inch — 2.5 inch asphalt overlay. This layer adds structural strength to the roadway, providing the base layers are still structurally sound and do not heave or shift greatly during the frost shifting months. This process also is performed to restore the crown in the roadway, to insure that the roadway drains to the edge of the roadway. It is important to remember that a bituminous overlay is only effective if the base materials are sound and static. Placing a new asphalt surface on poor materials which are below below is analogous to building a house on shifting sand. Pavement Reclamation (aka Reclaim): Typically, pavement structures are made up of a very bottom layer of clay (in Shorewood) then a sand sublayer (provides drainage and a static soil base), followed by a layer of aggregates or gravel, and finally the various layers of asphalt. Newer roadways may also include a geotextile fabric between the clay and sand layers. However, for this discussion, we will ignore this, for now. When the very bottom layers of the pavement structure remain strong and static, and the upper layers have deteriorated, pavement reclamation may be the preferred alternative. This process involves restoration of the surface layers by milling up and mixing the existing asphalt and aggregate layers together to form a new aggregate base. At that point, a new asphalt matt is placed over the newly formed base materials, to provide a new driving surface. Since a majority of the materials remain on site, and replacement fill materials are not required for the base, the costs of pavement reclamation are substantially less than a full roadway reconstruction. Full Roadway Reconstruction: This process involves excavation of the entire pavement structure, base layer and typically 2 feet of underlying sub -base clay materials. These materials are then replaced with materials less susceptible to frost heave, and reconstruction of the pavement structure. While this restores a pavement for a 20 to 30 year period, this process is the most costly alternative. Certainly, each method of restoration has pros and cons. In addition, factors such as necessary restoration of underlying utilities, or the addition of watermain to a project, may dictate which method of restoration may be used. The addition of the installation of watermain, for example, dictates that a majority of the roadway is to be excavated; thereby dictating that the project be a full roadway reconstruction project. To assist in the decision as to which method is to be utilized, a "Decision Matrix" is utilized to determine what process is the most cost effective method of pavement restoration. This decision matrix has been included as Attachment 2. Once the pavement has been rated, and a decision made as to the method of restoration, the challenge remains on how to fund the improvement project. This challenge is becoming more difficult to solve, as the prices of construction continue to increase. Each year, the Legislature considers various methods of funding ranging from bonding to establishment of a roadway fee. To date, no one clear method has been adopted. The City of Shorewood continues to fund street improvements through the Local Roadway and Municipal State Aid funds. The Local Roadway Fund, which bears the lion's share of activity, is financed by general levy funds for the City. How long the City can continue to fund improvements by this method is a matter that is presented in the Finance Director's memorandum. 0 • , O (fS H z W U Q > 00 r c0 O ° V' M 0) 0) r r co co 00 r r r r co r r r 0o r co 0) r CO co r N co cO r r co c0 CO co r (O N � � N m C C) •� co r° co r m r m Ln O M r 0 0 0 tl' r (0 r co r co co co c0 00 U) r LO In CO c0 r r r r O r N � C C) 'o v r- o) roomcornrrrr Lo rcocorr000rnr rn Lo cocomrrr r rr °r N � O C arcp�r �r corn° cornet o °rrrrcoco nmrr�rnrnr rnmm nvrrm co om or N � O O C C) '� r 0 'r V' co O° M O M co O r r r r c0 r to 0o r co co m O r O co r u) Ln CO co co c0 M co (£) r N � 00 0) C dr r M M co m° M t0 c0 c0 O W W M W M r co r r W co o) tc) co m co r (0 c0 (0 c0 r c0 (o cp to r N O G oB rr�r CO co u)° rd n nvrrrrvrcormcocorn nw d o�rmoorrr r rr nog N � LO O C Q•• 6 O LO W r ° 0 M W . O M W M M 00 M M W W co 00 � 00 Lo W c0 M M c0 co 00 00 W N M W N ry N O N O d O N N Lo d' N N O N N W M M M M r N r co m O Lo N N M N c0 d N N c0 c0 O N O O O 0) r m r d) r 0 0 r 0) r O r 0) 0 0 00 d) r O) r O r O r O r W m W O of Q) m 0 W 0 r 0 m 0 rn 0 rn 0 m o r O r O m 01 r 00 0 0) r a1 r O m O m r 0),0) r r r m r O W O I� 0) ® C r- •-- •° •- �- �- CO N �- •-- s- r .- r .- .- �- .- c- c- .- r- �- N .- .- - .- O m > cu c Z c p th E U E> =• B J O 0 o m U O- N 'V 3 R O B n 'd B o Y W N C 'U "2 p j E v v 01010 J � W 0 0 N U B U B v_ B v co C U B p >, co . C m _ O v B c.> B p cu p B d c) B v B ti Q B B N B N B N B N N B 'd C O C B N B N O 'N _ � N N N N N N •V N W N co > UC N N to N� -_ VS to U N O N C U y '� '6 'n L '� '6 'O Y N B Y N. .0 'p0 'p6 'p6 "06 B = '06 i "00 N = "00 i a i t a "BO 'D N 'O 'O a '06 X B C O O O N 'O 7 O B E O O O O C O o C O O N O Q' O O S C O O t N N 7 7 WC7U U U UU)U QU W f- JU)coZ U U UUS >UU W mU) J0 0 I -75 C) U U D000 B > N B N 'O 'O o -0 > p > C >> m 70 0 0 0 Q_ •O N O O •� •O J D_' Y a a 'R) m m 'O N N O Y h- O B 1Y O m B E 0 w 0 N 0 0 C c) C B 'O O O f- O C C Y Y o J N J C C '� C B C 'O ;O "O TJp J 0 OOP BO N C C J y p C B N N Y D N O C B N Q N O c C C C O N O O p 7 N N C D C B N O B J O J O 0� O �] 07 CO D•) d' B 'NO` ,` _6 O o O 0 Y O O N B E B E p N E 3 .p p B B Y N N N N E B O > c0 `c 3 (n c c s c o o p v Q n mn w 0 m E a_ ° c m m E o o o o Qs 2- o f E m E U �- U) U) U` U U' W J U3 CO (Yl fS] 07 Q U S O S U) U V) U) >- O I- Z Z M U U U) a 3 n0. a0 w a C a 'a 9 V U •C B C d W d d BO , tC d c B J B 0 d 0 t�6 o B rn d rn d rn d a) d B> fLC B= ;g m m > _ a a 3 B Y B Y B c B c B 0 Q.' > i O y® m d o U = > 'C U B B O d J J J J J i B O B O B d m m m m m U () L N O O B C ®_= - c +-� +' N B N N N B N B O Q O �' E = 0` O r® B O d Y U m B 0 LL J B B J N O B B E B E B E E E O= Qi N O d U s. a) C 3 >+ L m m d 'O N B 'a d 'O W d Y 'O ii.. N E ?� M P C V C O N N N N N N i B Q E =_ 75 B O N U) 4-1 O CL B o o O O B O ' t5 B B w = = =_= _ _ Q QC Q mmmmmmmmmmco0Om 0 0 000 U0 0 0 UUS U=U U_ UU_U O (fS H z W U Q • • • O O N (0 z W Q rnrnrrr(0(DOO() Zr > > p (D r rrnrncD(Dd mrnarr m °rnmzzoavav v'ttl- r N N � o N o O r r (D (D 00 V) co LO CO (D o Ern cD co m (D ° r r cm o 0 o r v v ct M r (o r N � � f C C) Lo Lo V' M co h r co CD (D V' r r r1' O r r (D (D O r h W O O O (D d' (D (D (D N Q% O C Q (f7 O rr (D co r r W (D r d' r r LD d) r r CO O M M W V 00 co M V' LO V It (D r r N � O � ❑ O o CU co co V' (D h (D r W (D h d' h GD CD O r r (D tD CD co (O O ti' M M O V' V' d' r r h N c O •� (D V' (D r h r W (D r V (D (D (D O r h (D LO (D (D (D O LO LO M CO r (D h N O � C 0 'N r (D V' W 00 00 00 O W r 't h h (D O 00 W r 'd' M M O to Lo LO M V' V' M M W h M N � 0) ❑ O O co d co r h co co CO (D co W 00 CO V (D V V N Co co (O (O D7 M D D CD V V (D (D N � (jj O(N (D N (D O O co co N O O co O co M M M co O N N N N M N h N N N N 00 O N N N O (D wa) I- r m r W r r O r r r r W r r h r r r r r r h h O r o0 r r r h m h r r r r (D D C m r d) r W r d) c- D) r Q7 r d1 c- D) �- a1 r O) �- O) r d) i- O r D7 r d) `- O <- O <- O i- O) �- O �- d) �- O r Q) s- 0—) r r O 01 O O O O) m O Q) a7 O O O O - O m > m > m > u > � E L N cc am r N C v U ° O O •- a 7k a > N a .❑ N a 0 m a m m > 0 U C U U m U m m m m m UC: m a o O — a a Qy a U m J a a co C W N d to d W N N N N N C W 2 U C WW D C C W y o°C C W C W C a -do >0 rQ) c N m m m a > 0 �o .. � 0 0 •° a m N° 7= C O 7 7 -5 -:-L3 L N m C a 7 m N N cc C) U o ❑ N n W W❑ W ❑° ❑ 00 a 2 p '2 w a E> m a _ a -0 m y E rna o � o m E W 0 a ° a a) o° a)( o r N > m > 0) w 0 E ® ` p m o m m o a O > o m m o o m o o _ E ,e L 4® o d m m m m m m c CC O m O o d V° ° C O Y Y Y Q O Q L Y Y O Y C p ° 0 0 ° m C Q O O Q 0 0 gi N c m O v v 0 0 o c X 0 0 a E E m c c c o 00 m c c o o E X u) >- n � Q Y W W Z U 2 W W W� W w o IV) Z Z ( co) Z Z n W L 0 O m m m O p 0 0 N o e o o d o Z (1) 2 0 O d O � > m C, n Z O U w w 'a O ❑ J -0-0 d T m m m m❑ > 0 = O p C d +0 O O 6 0 O ° .0 + 0 Q T y > L p ❑ i ❑ tN 4 m J m ° o ° O O 0. Y y t0 N f6 mU ° N N C 00 Q R ° J C C C 0 ° N N N Q C L > .Q > > > d > 0 0 0 0 U 0 U i 6 L o :+E UU 0 0 o d ❑❑❑❑ 0> ❑W 0 a w uWW wwwwwwIll c c c c x x m LLLLLLU-U d oo -0U` 00000000001 O O N (0 z W Q • • • • • c' 0 0 0 > r CO r (O > ° m O > O > O CO Lo 0 r r UO O d' m r m r r v @ co m m co r r r N C o •6 0 00 m m m m ° cs> m ° rn m d- ° r m m ° v v m rn m r v m m00 m rn co co co N � � r C m r O n r m m ° <r CO rn m r d rn m m m m O I- r C) N � O C O m r CO m r d m m m m t0 r r N � ICD C O 0 o r c° r �n v m rn o O r r m O rn v LO rn rn m r d rn m m m CO n o 0 N w 00 0) O C LO CO Cr m r V Lo r m O M V' m O m r V' m r r O CO co CO N CD 0) S O to co r) r o 0 0 0 rn r ° m v o r r r) h ct °° m m v° m rn rn rn r -I- O 0 N � C � mr m mmr v O m �t °mm<rmmr mchomm m co Om m 0) rn mmmm 0 N � v(� Uf - m U) m co m M O N r O r O ih O r N r N r N r. r r 0 0 m m r co r m 0 O m N r N r N m O r N r N r d' r O r N r N r N r N r co r CO m N r N r r O V) (T V) O t0 O CA O N r r m r m -�-. US (n O) O) O O m O O (T m O 6> O O m O) O) O C N a) N Lp a) > 0 > co a) Z D- U nL a x n W U a) C C _ O a C U @ @ C C N ° ca ° 0 T U U O N U U U >+ U N m o a U @= a @ ro@ a@ @ N _ a a ro ro N ro 3 a -o ro ro m ro 0) N N N C W C W C W° ° @ N a' C W (� S C W fn N N N C W '° y p � C ro N Q .-T '(� C W C W N N @ N 0 O ° o N a) J C N a) N a) C N 0 N a N a 3 .0 U a) U o m N m N o N o@ a) Q N m ro° a) N z) W 0 .0 (� O �o Q q o m m m m N° a m U 0 W v a w a w WICO-11 D c0 w �o Uino00000UC�ininwOOU �UC�ciC) U -O -O > C a m @ D N a) O ° O °A o o °@ o ° o p` m •0 0 @ a �a ' .. @ Q) @ a aO @ J a c @ c c .D @ o ° U p y- ° Q 0 c a) c @ o ro o° c ' p m . 0 3 c o o mo -- c 3ro >> U = ; 0 - O a) N a) a) O) ro a .O > ° a L a C = 2 ro y U m o c o Q ° i m Y a) 3 m 2 2 m Cn � W E cn 5 E w° W E V) W Q) �- �- (n E F- m Q W x W (n Co (n -x (n J ro J 0 W (n U t7 i i 0 d > > t0�! � o Op 'a •ac ' O O •® L 0 0 L a Cl) Z s : �4C L / c •� 0 ry Ua @ ' N N aL s wo s O > a a 3 U'C ' Q L m m '.pL ~Y c °1 m c c L Q J J N O y N d i 0 y@O g O Q C a C y A O O R > O _ / d d O d 0 a A N N O ® L °6 L 'ag L 'c6 L d A 3 3 d C @ J N _ p ) B - aO O a Y a) Y aY ) d Q O. Q @ A @ Q @ Q @ @ @ @ jO @ U S S S S S S S S S @ @ @ cc @ CO O Ch N fif CL Z W 2E U Q • II 0 h h m f r 00 of h h r h h 00 h (O m (o r 00 r° Lo r m > a r (o (O (D m > > a > a r O 0 > a M 0 Lo N � N � C 0 'm (D O d' m OJ Co h W co m CO r h O (o d' m W In r CO CD r h O— to O— O— V' Uy (D N ry 0) r C 0 0 m r h h r r h (o m r (o m r (o M m (o m r h 't <t (t) (o h N O � C hroorco Dh�rrr Dm h D mh °(D C', n o 0 ov v n n wrr N � O � C M (o r (n m m h h h h (D (n co m h m r (o m (D (D m r ° co m co u) co cD (o (n v u) to to (D io N W 00 G '� (D h N m W r m h cO r (O (o m m r h (o m h r m r (c') of (o (o r h r I t to Co N � O C 6 h h (n Co m m° m 00 m (n m co h co m X) ° r cD m m � co h r h h r Cl) v u) (n � Lo cD N C OCO CO Co (n 00 r CO CO CO h V W V• of m co d' (D (O m W 00 W W 00 (o W m c0 (o V' V <t m V' N � a) (6 00 00 O N N N O (O M N O m M (o Lo M CO O N (D m N O O N N N N O W r N N N N N N N N a- 00 00 r h h h r r 00 m r h W r m m co h 0 m r O 11-0 M r r O h r r h m r W r r h r r h h r m m m m m m m m m m m O m m m m O m O N m m �- O N m O N m m c- m �-- O N m m c- m � m e- m � m �- m — m m m m m m m m C �- �- �- �- r �- r �- i- �- �-- C O �j (u L m > m > m > @ > m > z a) a� a) S o n c @ > a a @ �? (n O o h N> � a O C N @@ @ @ Y @ O L w Q N U @ U @ U@ @ rn U @ N w C O Y U @ a O— �' .� U @ in -O O a O U @ U @ C U @ a Q U @ U @ a O) U @ C C N @ U @ U @ C C N C O O — (n N N N N N O �' N N N @ L U N 3@ N N C w @. Y V N a) a) O >i O to N N N N N @O C N N N N N a) O N O (n a) N a) @ -O @ 'Q J CO S a a a a c c o a a n L a o a s a N a s @= o a N a c c a 7 7 L O. N O N m L O 7° C) a L O� c O 0 0 O@ @ O L 7 .7 7 7 ml 2 L UUC) (W)A 000000(o W U) C) UU W a.UU Sin UC�UUU U) (f) mcn -o >>i E > a o a ® c c @ -0 >1 O 0 O > a 12 @o 0 e 0 w J O m a N N a a@ Q J O N C � N 0 a O N O O O O p C O C O C > N N S O p y C Y @ @ N O n m @ < O a N @ X @ O @ O O N S O N O O N L L z z 2 > � w iU O O U > w CD U i w w C7 (j) i S> [@ U O U > u u> U c@ n 1 � s s > t = N O z� O 'C O 'C U N d d G NO j m N N N C O O Z (L D. U O U m V ` W UO � T T d C O p O O C O w® U@ ) 2 y I CO m A C @ i L a > O) CM U) N N �.N U U U O O O @ Y @ Y @ .0 ` (Cu) O O @ C @ O @ a @ @ d O E > @ a l_ C 6 U) **nman2 ��zzzz000 00 @ ao.n.a @ a. a aWaWMw�REawwcntn(n(n O d' Q O7 Z W Z U Q • • • ri 07 c Un Un (O V' ° r w h h d' 01 w w w w w w > a Q > a r > a r O r M Cl) a7 > r r O V d' > a r r r r O O > N ry z N = Q '• Lo w Un O w Un w w (O (O M° w w w w w Q1 r r h r Cl) Cl) 0) (O to 0) Un M (0 (O w w O O 6 N fy CD C (D (0 (0 (0 w w w ° w w w w w m CO r r h M co a7 r (n rn d' co r (O r (O ° w CD N � O C 0 r (O (n v w r r V' w w w w w w (D r rn (O co M 6) N O O 0 U() (0 Un (O r (O (n <h co r (0 (n N w w w w w w CO r tT M M M D7 r to a1 (o M w (D w r W In N C OO ' = to (O V• (O r (O (O d' of r (O V' N W w 00 w W w (O c0 � M M Lo r V' O) (O V (O (O (O (O m to N � 0) C ' (O r V' (O h co h V' r (D d' V' w w w w w O h r M M r N L C O(O (O d' (O •d• (O M <f' w w h w Un O O O O O O c0 (O w (t) V d' Lo w w r V' V' U1 (O (O U') <t co N � 4% (10 •+� N r co h M r M r M h N r N h N r Utz w O w m O0 m h N r Un 0 In 0 Un 0 to 0 to 0 to 0) <t O It O N to V' m N h N r N h r r h 00 h to w rn to m N r N h O r w w w O m O m O r d' h N r N w O W O O m 0) O) O O O O O O O O 01 O O O 47 O d) 47 d1 a2 6) O O 47 as tT d) O O a1 O O 0) O 6) Q O c- r N N N N N N N N N N Q > > > > -o > c ro L T C m a O� ro � > o U ® N w m G �'oa c E� ma� um.E o U U U U U j N ro a a a U m a U m L U ro c U m U m- d m T U m U m N c m o c U ro U m U ro U ro U ro a c y c ro m ro ro m = N C C C N C (n N m Q' O N N N N N N m U N N N N 0 a a a a a a a a a) a s o~ m a o Q o 0 0 0 g a Q o 0 o a a o .mC () .0 (n N m N U N 0 7 U N m C U m W 'O U N>> Z.0 U Q' J U` O 2 o m O v) C U N `! O U (J) ro C C U O U >> U U O U� U (n O (n C W O U C U 7 U 7 U 7 U 0 a� m o 3 -2 -o m Q) o o ° c o > N > m 0) C a m m ro Q > ' Q a 0� m O m U m o ro 0 c N m a - o m o O J U U m o C m M 'C 'o "o 'o C �' —� �' CO 'O a J T a' 3 w J a C m m m m -- C N d m C Q C m (a6 o C ro �,' C m- 'O ro m C N mO 3 N S N p J O O O J 'O O O N .� O d' O A W T c -o '6 'O 'O 'O N .G 3 -c z c m� o Y o El a En s ° J Y n 0 m 0- °� r s c c r m E 3 E E@ o E O z x x m m E m E 0 3 3 m .� (n (n (n (o (n � (n U3 (n (n u) (n U J U S m (f) z } W W 2 (n (n Q U (n (J3 (n (!J U i- d U 0 .tL3 ® 0 0 'O '6 'O 'O a s 2 U m E m w m d'. U O N d U 3 ($ tS O U 0 d W i° m m (i i C m m 0 m 0 m 0 m 0 m 0 A m O A A A A d U 1- s O C> m m 0 0 m 4f U O U O U Z M •O S a •O J d d H U J �' Q' 0' > > C .O m U m m m m m m m m m U L C (Sf (6 (6 t1S s m O p` a a n ++ z w N sn N m r o 0 o 0 m � 3 o 3 0 3 o 3 a 3 o 3 0 3 0 3 o L v �+ V x o c m c m e m c m v `- m a L o a m S m x m m m s m- L J A Qi A 'O A 'O A •a A 'O A a A •a d .. d L d L L U g .Q %Q Q % A U J w Ti �i 3 3 N U C O O O> d ci .i i Q L m L m (La (La R (LC .a C cn t6 O Cl) wu)0) (o p� (wto��(n��(Ainw�(n(ncn�ininN�� in('nin(on(n�m(nF�hh- O U') N co CL i- Z w G U h Q ll W c o r °OmrommmmmmLn n'rr °r° z co n m N � N C O •� �rMm °mwmrrr °OmcoLoco °r °mr Un u> ° N � O � C io <r cr ° r 00 m m m 00 m m Lo r° v to cr r fl m° N ry O O G Lo d O (O o N cr- O � O •� o Lo er"rmrrmrrrmmcom<rrIt'IT Md co o OLD N 0 O O O to co co Cl) r r r r r m m �.o �.o d' r V' d' u) O Lo L0 U-j Cfj N � C r CO r M of to Lf) It W V d' Lo r Co to d' to N O •� <t <t <t CO r 00 00 W co V' V 00 O of Cl) Cl) r V' of V to CO N N O O Uo N V• 0 V' 't d' N N O N O w � O N O O N N N O m m r m r m W m r m W m O O CO m m m m m th m r m r m r m r m W m o r m r m m m 00 m r m r m r m r m = N �- <- r r r N O z C t6 C C C Q O U O J N N N U O N 6 v C J C E U° N J '6 'o > a U (0 L) U f0 a y C — U N U W 'O — co N U U U> U U fn N N N C W� .0 .O C � U N N N N O= 'C S ro f- N N O •n W C O N Y N N N N 0) O N a a > o UUdcnU aoi o m W UU�JJU(ndU` U2 W UUUtL U U Q' r O N r O ° O O@ m T M a .a @ a 0 0 0 ,C c J C >, 3 00 m cr ° W� c o o c c o 0 c a m m c T m Q s w N m d 3 0� a o 3° Y Y i o o c a c m o r a m E E m a ro o m m o U) > W i)0; cV)5000) Uff z(D (L V))U)(1) S = co i c ° m� � �� °' m an d �_ a m 'a •� d V ''rn ''� U' J J 6 J 0 aa I- d a v m y m v Ec0 L c J o o o c y y a a ° 0) t LrC m J T v 3 N d •j � a0+ ,O aO+ a O O moIa /) N N =s 'd O O O O E c R N o d d 0 0 0 0 1= > >> " } CO O O O} h Z W U F¢— Q <. N F-a Z �W /. U N N APPENDICIES X07 =_ 1 Introduction 2 Asphalt pavement distress 3 Evaluation 4 Surface defects 4 Surface deformation 5 Cracking 7 Patches and potholes 12 Rating pavement surface condition 14 Rating system 15 Rating 10 & 9 — Excellent 16 Rating 8 — Very Good 17 Rating 7 — Good 18 Rating 6 — Good 19 Rating 5 — Fair 20 Rating 4 — Fair 21 Rating 3 — Poor 22 Rating 2 — Very Poor 23 Rating 1 — Failed 25 Practical advice on rating roads 26 This manual is intended to assist local officials in understanding and rating the surface condition of asphalt pavement. It describes types of defects and provides a simple system to visually rate pavement condition. The rating procedure can be used as condition data for the Wisconsin DOT local road inventory and as part of a computerized pavement management system like PASERWARE. The PASER system described here and in other T.I.C. publications is based in part on a roadway management system originally developed by Phil Scherer, transportation planner, Northwest Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission. Produced by the T.I.C. with support from the Federal Highway Administration, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, and the University of Wisconsin- Extension. The T.I.C., part of the nationwide Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP), is a Center of the College of Engineering, Department of Engineering Professional Development, University of Wisconsin— Madison. Copyright O 1987, 1989, 2002 Wisconsin Transportation Information Center 432 North Lake Street Madison, WI 53706 phone 800/442 -4615 fax 608/263 -3160 e -mail tic @epd.engr.wisc.edu URL http: / /tic.engr.wisc.edu V. Printed on recycled paper. Pavement Surface Evaluation and Rating Donald Walker, T.I.C. Director, author Lynn Entine, Entine & Associates, editor Susan Kummer, Artifax, designer CTransportation Information Center University of Wisconsin— Madison - Rating pavement surface condition 15 None. New construction. None. Recent overlay. Like new. No longitudinal cracks except reflection of paving joints. Recent sealcoat or new cold mix Occasional transverse cracks, widely spaced (40' or greater). Little or no maintenance All cracks sealed or tight (open less than 1/4 "). required, Very slight or no raveling, surface shows some traffic wear. First signs of aging. Maintain Longitudinal cracks (open 1 /4 ") due to reflection or paving joints, with routine crack filling'. Transverse cracks (open 1/4 ") spaced 10' or more apart, little or slight crack raveling. No patching or very few patches in excellent condition. Significant aging and first signs Slight raveling (loss of fines) and traffic wear. Shows signs of aging. Sound Longitudinal cracks (open 1/4 "- 1/2 "), some spaced less than 10'. structural condition. Could First sign of block cracking. Sight to moderate flushing or polishing. extend life with sealcoat Occasional ,patching in good condition. Moderate to severe raveling (loss of fine and coarse aggregate). Surface aging. Sound structural Longitudinal and transverse cracks (open 112 ") show first signs of condition. Needs sealcoat or slight raveling and secondary cracks. First signs of longitudinal cracks thin non - structural overlay (less near pavement edge. Block cracking up to 50% of surface. Extensive than 2 ") to severe flushing or polishing. Some patching or edge wedging in good condition. Severe surface raveling. Multiple longitudinal and transverse cracking Significant aging and first signs with slight raveling.' Longitudinal cracking in wheel path. Block of need for strengthening. Would cracking (over 50% of surface). Patching in fair condition. benefit from a structural overlay Slight rutting or distortions (112" deep or less). (2" or more). Closely spaced longitudinal and transverse cracks often showing Needs patching and repair prior raveling and crack erosion. Severe block cracking. Some alligator to major overlay. Milling and cracking (less than 25% of surface), Patches in fair to poor condition. removal of deterioration extends Moderate rutting or distortion (1 " or 2" deep). Occasional potholes, the life of overlay. Alligator cracking (over 25 % of surface). Severe deterioration. Needs Severe distortions (over 2" deep) reconstruction with extensive Extensive patching in poor condition. base repair. Pulverization of old Potholes. pavement is effective. Severe distress with extensive loss of surface integrity. Failed. Needs total reconstruction. * Individual pavements will not have all of the types of distress listed for any particular rating. They may have only one or two types. 16 Rating pavement surface condition EXCELLENT — No maintenance required Newly constructed or recently overlaid roads are in excellent condition and require no maintenance. RATING 10 New construction. 0. RATING 9 Recent overlay, urban. 0. RATING 9 Recent overlay, rural. Rating pavement surface condition 17 VERY GOOD — Little or no maintenance required This category includes roads which have been recently sealcoated or overlaid with new cold mix. It also includes recently constructed or overlaid roads which may show longitudinal or transverse cracks. All cracks are tight or sealed. Recent chip seal. t Recent slurry seal. ♦ Widely spaced, sealed cracks. ® New cold mix surface. 18 Rating pavement surface condition GOOD — Routine sealing recommended Roads show first signs of aging, and they may have very slight raveling. Any longitudinal cracks are along paving joint. Transverse cracks may be approximately 10' or more apart. All cracks are 114" or less, with little or no crack erosion. Few if any patches, all in very good condition. Maintain a crack sealing program. Tight and sealed transverse and longitudinal cracks. Maintain crack sealing program. s Tight and sealed transverse and longitudinal cracks. Transverse cracks about 10` or more apart. Maintain crack sealing program. Open crack, 1/2" Large blocks, early signs of wide; adjoining raveling and block cracking. ® pavement sound. Rating pavement surface condition 19 GOOD — Consider preservative treatment Roads are in sound structural condition but show definite signs of aging. Seal - coating could extend their useful life. There may be slight surface raveling. Transverse cracks can be frequent, less than 10' apart. Cracks may be 1/4_1/2 "and sealed or open. Pavement is generally sound adjacent to cracks. First signs of block cracking may be evident. May have slight or moderate bleeding or polishing. Patches are in good condition. Slight surface raveling with tight cracks, less than 10' apart. Transverse cracking less than 10' apart; cracks well - sealed. T Moderate flushing. 20 Rating pavement surface condition FAIR — Preservative maintenance treatment required Roads are still in good structural condition but clearly need sealcoating or overlay. They may have moderate to severe surface raveling with signifi- cant loss of aggregate. First signs of longitudinal cracks near the edge. First signs of raveling along cracks. Block cracking up to 50% of surface. Extensive to severe flushing or polishing. Any patches or edge wedges are in good condition. 0. Moderate to severe raveling in wheel paths. ® Severe flushing. ♦ Block cracking with open cracks. A Wedges and patches extensive but in good condition. Severe raveling with v extreme loss of aggregate. Load cracking and slight v rutting in wheel path. Rating pavement surface condition 21 FAIR — Structural improvement required Roads show first signs of needing strengthening by overlay. They have very severe surface raveling which should no longer be sealed. First longitudinal cracking in wheel path. Many transverse cracks and some may be raveling slightly. Over 50% of the surface may have block cracking. Patches are in fair condition. They may have rutting less than 1 12" deep or slight distortion. ® Longitudinal cracking; early load - related distress in wheel path. Strengthening needed. v Slight rutting; patch in good condition. ® Extensive block cracking. Blocks tight and sound. ® Slight rutting in wheel path. 22 Rating pavement surface condition POOR — Structural improvement required Roads must be strengthened with a structural overlay (2" or more). Will benefit from milling and very likely will require pavement patching and repair beforehand. Cracking will likely be extensive. Raveling and erosion in cracks may be common. Surface may have severe block cracking and show first signs of alligator cracking. Patches are in fair to poor condition. There is moderate distortion or rutting (1 -2 ") and occasional potholes. ► Many wide and raveled cracks indicate need for milling and overlay. ► 2" ruts need mill and overlay. Open and raveled block cracks. Rating pavement surface condition 23 POOR — (continued) Structural improvement required ® Alligator cracking. Edge needs repair and drainage needs improvement prior to rehabilitation. ♦ Distortion with patches in poor condition. Repair and overlay. 24 Rating pavement surface condition VERY POOR — Reconstruction required Roads are severely deteriorated and need reconstruction. Surface pulverization and additional base may be cost - effective. These roads have more than 25% alligator cracking, severe distortion or rutting, as well as potholes or extensive patches in poor condition. Extensive alligator cracking. Pulverize and rebuild. ® Severe rutting. Strengthen base and reconstruct. ® Patches in poor condition, wheelpath rutting. Pulverize, strengthen and reconstruct. Severe frost damage. Reconstruct. Rating pavement surface condition 25 FAILED — Reconstruction required Roads have failed, showing severe distress and extensive loss of surface integrity. Potholes from frost damage. Reconstruct. Potholes and severe alligator cracking. Failed pavement. Reconstruct. Extensive loss of surface. Rebuild. Good rural ditch and driveway culvert. Culvert end needs cleaning. RATING: Good High shoulder and no ditch lead to pavement damage. Needs major ditch improvement for a short distance. RATING: Fair No drainage leads to failed pavement. RATING: Poor Practical advice on rating roads 27 Consider both pavement surface drainage and lateral drainage (ditches or storm sewers). Pavement should be able to quickly shed water off the surface into the lateral ditches. Ditches should be large and deep enough to drain the pavement and remove the surface water efficiently into adjacent waterways. Look at the roadway crown and check for low surface areas that permit ponding. Paved surfaces should have approximately a 2% cross slope or crown across the roadway. This will provide approximately 3" of fall on a 12' traffic lane. Shoulders should have a greater slope to improve surface drainage. A pavement's ability to carry heavy traffic loads depends on both the pavement materials (asphalt surfacing and granular base) and the strength of the underlying soils. Most soils lose strength when they are very wet. Therefore, it is important to provide drainage to the top layer of the subgrade supporting the pavement structure. In rural areas, drainage is provided most economically by open ditches that allow soil moisture to drain laterally. As a rule of thumb, the bottom of the ditch ought to be at least one foot below the base course of the pavement in order to drain the soils. This means that minimum ditch depth should be about 2' below the center of the pavement. Deeper ditches, of course, are required to accommodate roadway culverts and maintain the flow line to adjacent drainage channels or streams. You should also check culverts and storm drain systems. Storm drainage systems that are silted in, have a large accumulation of debris, or are in poor structural condition will also degrade pavement performance. The T.I.C. publication, Drainage Manual: Local Road Assessment and Improvement describes the elements of drainage systems, depicts them in detailed photographs, and explains how to rate their condition. Copies are available from the Transportation Information Center. 12 City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Title / Subject: Street Maintenance CIP Costs Meeting Date: January 29, 2015 Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director Reviewed by: Bill Joynes, City Administrator Larry Brown, Director of Public Works Paul Hornby, City Engineer, Attachments: 20 Year Street Maintenance Schedule Policy Consideration: How should the City manage the cost of street maintenance? Background: Pavement management is a major investment for Shorewood. The cost is exceeded only by the cost of public safety and sewage disposal in the city's budgets. • MEETING TYPE Council — Staff Retreat Many of the streets were originally installed in the 1970's when the city first experienced sustained housing growth. Some of those roads are reaching the end of their life and need to be replaced. Others can have their life extended through proper maintenance. The attached schedule shows the estimated year of each maintenance activity or replacement. The estimated costs are included in the Financial Management Plan (FMP). What we can see is that even continuing the pattern of annually increasing funding for street maintenance by the $15,000 that the Council added for the 2015 budget, there is a funding gap beginning in 2019. The cost of Strawberry Lane and other projects will far exceed the annual amount transferred in from the General Fund. This deficit continues through the end of the 10 year period that we are examining. Costs seem to level off starting with 2024 through 2030, averaging about $700,000 per year. From an engineering standpoint, the streets listed in the plan do need to be reconstructed. The existing base material is generally inadequate to support the streets for the long -term. We have recognized the council's desire to change the timing or extent of reconstruction for several streets, including Eureka Road North and Glen Road East. Eureka Road North needs additional conversation about the amount of reconstruction. It was originally slated as an MSA project a couple of years ago. In order to use MSA funds for sidewalk construction along MSA streets Smithtown Road and Galpin Lake Road, it was necessary to remove the cost of Eureka. Staff settled on Reclaim as being in the middle of full reconstruction to MSA standards and the cost of a mill and overlay. However, the street Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 probably needs reconstruction, but not to MSA standards. That will increase the cost of the project, but until some engineering estimates are done, we will not have a good estimated cost. Glen Road East was originally scheduled for 2016 along with Amlee Road and Manitou Lane. It has been rescheduled for 2021 by staff, based on that year being the first drop in other scheduled street costs. From an engineering view, the street probably should be reconstructed as soon as possible. The question becomes one of how do we finance the bubble of costs in the 2019 -2021 range or can the projects be delayed or restructured to cost less? Staff does not believe it is in the best interest of the city to delay the projects further. Therefore we can see that the costs of about $2,000,000 need to be financed. The final tax levies will be made during 2022 for the last bond payments for the Public Safety buildings to be paid off February 1, 2023. That will potentially free up tax levy dollars for new bond payments starting in 2024. Debt service payments could be structured to minimize the tax levy impact for the years between 2020 and 2023. Other options include to increase the annual tax levy transfer, delay projects, reduce the scope of projects, or to assess part of the costs of street reconstruction. These options are not mutually exclusive decisions and can be re- evaluated based on the pavement condition ratings and project cost estimates which are updated annually. While this seems like a daunting amount of project costs to cover, there are tools and strategies that we can use to minimize the impact on our residents. While the costs are ultimately borne by the taxpayers, financing methods can minimize the annual effect and allow us to smoothly merge the costs of financing street projects with the end of our public safety debt service. O � to O N O 3 ? � � O CA � N C4--( , O U U O H N O N M N O N N N O N r- N O N O N O N W .ti rOr N V1 00 0 (/� N U O O F� O N O N O zrg u O ^O C O W C O u O S. C O u a L i C�l o O O O C, C, o 0 0 o C> o C> O C, O o O o 0 0 0 0 o O O O O o 0 0 0 0 o O O O O o o C> o 0 0 0 o C, O O o C� C� o 0 0 0 o Cl Cl co Cl o Q 0 0 0 o Ci Ci o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O O o I7 M O N c N' N N' Lo � V` O N CA � V O O oA N co O cn O m M R Cc) V- M M <t M O cc> N Cb N N -g C O O et M R M Co co M M O M �t tF �'- N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N c c0 M V M co !7 M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C 0 C 0 0 0 cl: o I-_ M C7 N O N W M 4- c0 �t M 0 0 CD v N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C N W N N Lo M t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 00 00_ oo_ °0 0 O M N CO O M O O V M V V M c0 � N vi 6 6 6 L 6 G o as aS � � � � � Q K c N O o z m C o J v m c C m o m m Z m �° o cet 0 m Z c U w o U a a K J m K a`> >, = coi Q O � U -i T N m m . rn m o �' = o O J O m m C d' Y O C > (� '� N N N C T �' -O ( �' ld N J N � N E J � (/J Y m >, Y E °—� -° c Y m c 0 3 w Y .2 o c o- a `i' m a� r m v m E m — m v .c o LOU o 15 m ? L m m m c C) in cn ¢ c� i� cn c7 = Y O cn m m c > w 0 tl O 0 b Cs S 'Q 0 0 0 o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C, C, C� O O O O O O O O O O O 10 O o 0 Y O I� O CA O Di O N O_ O ^ O L6 O o O N O V O 1- O Lo O Co O Go O co O N O N O �F O N O 1� N O h M ti Cti t= F O � M N O O LO CD N �Y N r- ^ N � R N N 1� M N r r r 0 0 0 0 o O O O O O O O O C O O tD (Op O N r N tlN' (`4 N cD Lo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O O O M O M M N N CN m � m N "t co r— N M O M o 0 o O o 0 o p N O oo (N 'cY 1� Lo O W M cn N t[7 eo N V N N a) m ch o O O O O O O b fV O O O O_ � ti ® 1� W 117 O O N O m T N N ll') O O O O V O d' cD V o N M cV N CD c COD m 0 E` °o Oo ° o_o ° - O o U-1 M (' OM a O O 00 co O o: 00 A O m N N 0 o °o °o O n O Lr o ai a 1 8 M M O e O N O o N O N 4'➢ N O p In O O O r 600 O N N N to ltd lIJ - Ln «7 I1J 117 lf] ll) LfJ to to to In LIJ lt) to l() IA N — O C t a o cc v U N � � h C 4l C O C N N ry a a U o a U aS W a' o ot$ _ N �_ cd W O N N m a (Q j C Y W, � ca i U �— C N p .� C (U m ,F+ o a > (6 co - H (� a s J U U J D N m U _ U Y O c', J a a y O C to cc N N (j (o 'C (O C �i N to (6 In N J N N a O OJ rn �.+ V O C I o 15 U N C ? a' o m (t5 (9 N C 1 C U U N (v N a) 'N t s` o— N co > E co co > �_ a� o c o c o c a V� m x W rn � U U U U�� cn to rn to to o W W W co O 0 b Cs S 'Q City of Shorewood - 20 Year Street Maintenance Program Planned Yearly Activities Updated 1/23/15 Deferred = D Reconstruct = Reclaim = M Overlay = Sealcoat = S Street Name from to 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 3RD AVE Christmas Lake Road Excelsior city limits S S 62ND ST W E Cathcart Dr Strawberry Lane S 62ND ST W W Cathcart Dr Dead End S S ACADEMY AVE Yellowstone Trail Grant Street S S AFTON RD Smithtown Road Cathcart Drive S S AM LEE RD Manitou Lane Cul -de -sac S S ANTHONYTER Vine Street Cul -de -sac S S APPLE RD Mill Street South city limits (Chan) S S ARBOR CREEK LA Grant Lorenz Road Cul -de -sac W S S BAYSWATER RD Minnetonka Boulevard Dead End S S BEVERLY DR Cathcart Drive Cul -de -sac S S BIRCH BLUFF RD E Grant Lorenz Road Tonka Bay city limits S BLUE RIDGE LA Lake Virginia Drive Lake Virginia Drive S S BOULDER BRIDGE DR Smithtown Road Smithtown Road S S BOULDER BRIDGE LA N Boulder Bridge Lane North Cul -de -sac S S BOULDER BRIDGE LAS Boulder Bridge Drive South Cul -de -sac S S BOULDER CIR Boulder Bridge Drive Cul -de -sac S BRACKETTS RD Apple Road Cul -de -sac S S BRAND CIR Christmas Lane Cul -de -sac S S BRENTRIDGE DR Howards Point Road (S) Howards Point Road (N) S S BRYNMAWR PL Howards Point Road Cul -de -sac S S BURLWOOD CT Shorewood Oaks Road Cul -de -sac S S CAJED LA Smithtown Road Beverly Drive S S CARDINAL DR Murray Street South city limits (Chan) S S CATHCART DR Smithtown Road LRT S S CHARLESTON CIR Yellowstone Trail Cul -de -sac S S CHARTWELL HILL Old Market Road Cul -de -sac S S CHASKA RD E Mayflower TH 7 S S CHASKA RD W TH 41 Mayflower S S CHESTNUT CT Near Mountain Boulevard Cul -de -sac S S CHESTNUTTER Near Mountain Boulevard Cul -de -sac S S CHRISTMAS LA E Christmas Lake Road Dead End E S CHRISTMAS LA W Christmas Lake Road Dead End W S S CHRISTMAS LAKE RD 3rd Avenue Christmas Lane S CHRISTOPHER RD Smithtown Road Cul -de -sac S S CHURCH RD West 62nd Street Cul -de -sac S S CLOVER LA Minnetonka Drive Cul -de -sac S S CLUB LA Smithtown Road Dead End S S CLUB VALLEY RD Yellowstone Trail Wood Drive S S rage i City of Shorewood - 20 Year Street Maintenance Program Planned Yearly Activities Updated 1/23/15 Deferred = Reconstruct = Reclaim = M Overlay = Sealcoat = S Street Name from to 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 COUNTRY CLUB RD Smithtown Road Yellowstone Trail S S COVINGTON CT Vine Hill Road Cul -de -sac S S COVINGTON RD E Old Market Rd Vine Hill Rd S S COVINGTON RD W Radisson Road Old Market Rd S S DEER RIDGE Koehnen Circle Cul -de -sac S S DELLWOOD LA Enchanted Drive Cul -de -sac S S DIVISION ST Excelsior city limits Dead End S S ECHO RD County Road 19 Country Club Road S EDGEWOOD RD Howards Point Road Grant Lorenz Road S ELBERT PT McKinley Place Cul -de -sac S S ELDER TURN Minnetonka Drive Cul -de -sac S S ELMRIDGE CIR Edgewood Road Cul -de -sac S S ENCHANTED COVE Enchanted Drive Cul -de -sac S S ENCHANTED DR Enchanted Lane Cul -de -sac S S O ENCHANTED LA Minnetrista city limits Shady Island Bridge S S O ENCHANTED PT Enchanted Lane Dead End S S EUREKA RD N Smithtown Road Birch Bluff Road S EUREKA RD S Smithtown Road State Highway #7 S S EXCELSIOR BLVD St. Albans Bay Road East city limits (Deephn) S S FAIRWAY DR Smithtown Road End Cul -de -sac ( n) S S FATIMA PL Minnetonka Boulevard Dead End S S FERNCROFT DR Minnetonka Boulevard Forest Drive S S FOREST DR Minnetonka Boulevard Dead End S S GALPIN LAKE RD State Highway #7 Mayflower Rd /So city limits S S GARDEN RD Minnetonka Boulevard Dead End S GILLETTE CUR Minnetonka Drive Cul -de -sac S GLEN RD E County Road 19 Manitou Ln S S GLEN RD W Manitou Ln Dead End S S GLENCOE RD North city limits (Exc) Dead End S S GRANT LORENZ RD Smithtown Road Birch Bluff Road S S GRANT ST Excelsior city limits Dead End S S HARDING AVE Wedgewood Drive Harding Lane S S HARDING LA N Harding Avenue Cul -de -sac (North) S S HARDING LAS Harding Avenue Cul -de -sac (South) S S HILLENDALE RD HOWARDS POINT RD Mill Street Smithtown Road Dead End S S Dead End S S IDLEWILD PATH Rustic Way Suburban Drive S S IVY LA Ferncroft Drive Rustic Way S S KATHLEEN CT Woodside Road Cul -de -sac I S I I S Page 2 City of Shorewood - 20 Year Street Maintenance Program Planned Yearly Activities Updated 1/23/15 Deferred = Reconstruct = Reclaim = M Overlay = S Sealcoat = Street Name from to 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 KELSEY DR Smithtown Road End Cul -de -sac ( s) S S KNIGHTSBRIDGE RD Manor Road Manor Road S S LAFAYETTE AVE Excelsior city limits Dead End LAKE LINDEN CT Yellowstone Trail Cul -de -sac S S LAKE LINDEN DR Yellowstone Trail State Highway #7 S S LAKE VIRGINIA DR Smithtown Road Dead End S S LAKEWAY TER Minnetonka Boulevard Cul -de -sac S S LAWTONKADR Timber Lane Cul -de -sac S S LEE CIR Birch Bluff Road Cul -de -sac S S LILAC LA Mill Street Dead End S S MALLARD LA Wedgewood Drive Cul -de -sac S S MANITOU LA Amlee Road Glen Road S S MANN LA Eureka Road Seamans Drive S MANOR RD Excelsior Boulevard East city limits (Dphn) S S MAPLE AVE Strawberry Lane Dead End S S MAPLE LEAF CIR Shorewood Oaks Drive Dead End S S MAPLE RIDGE LA Lake Virginia Drive Cul -de -sac S S MAPLE ST Lake Linden Dr. End East S MAPLE VIEW CT Eureka Road Cul -de -sac S S MARSH POINTE CIR Marsh Point Drive End Cul -de -sac ( n) S S MARSH POINTE CT Marsh Point Drive End Cul -de -sac (n) S S MARSH POINTE DR Smithtown Rd (E connect) Smithtown Rd. (W connect) S S MARY LAKE TR Country Club Road Cul -de -sac S S MAYFLOWER RD Chaska Road Galpin Lake Road S S S MCKINLEY CIR McKinley Court Cul -de -sac S MCKINLEY CT Vine Hill Road Cul -de -sac S MCKINLEY PL N Near Mountain Boulevard Cul -de -sac S MCKINLEY PL S Near Mountain Boulevard Cul -de -sac S MCLAIN RD Minnetonka Drive Cul -de -sac S S MEADOWVIEW RD Valleywood Lane Wild Rose Lane S S MERRY LA Radisson Road Public Lake Access S S MINNETONKA BLVD St. Alban's Bay Road Dphn city limits S S M I N N ETON KA DR County Road 19 Yellowstone Trail S S MUIRFIELD CIR Old Market Road Old Market Road S S MURRAY CT Murray Street Cul -de -sac S S MURRAY HILL RD Chanhassen City Limits( s) Chaska Road S S MURRAY ST Galpin Lake Road Dead End S S NEAR MOUNTAIN BLVD Vine Hill Road South city limits (Chan) S S NELSINE DR Eureka Road Cul-de -sac S S Page 3 City of Shorewood - 20 Year Street Maintenance Program Planned Yearly Activities Updated 1/23/15 Deferred = D Reconstruct = Reclaim = M Overlay = Sealcoat = S Street Name from to 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NOBLE RD E Grant Lorenz Road 670' West S S NOBLE RD W 670' West Edgewood Road S S OAK LEAF TR Shorewood Oaks Drive Shorewood Oaks Drive S S OAK RIDGE CIR Grant Lorenz Road Cul -de -sac S S OAKVIEW CT Chaska Road Cul -de -sac S S OLD MARKET RD State Highway #7 Covington Road S S ORCHARD CIR Eureka Road Cul -de -sac S S PARK LA Eureka Road End Road (w) S S PARK ST Glencoe Road Pleasant Avenue S S PARKVIEW LA Suburban Drive Cul -de -sac (e) S S PEACH CIR Strawberry Lane Cul -de -sac S S PINE BEND Howards Point Road Howards Point Road S S PLEASANT AVE Yellowstone Trail State Highway #7 S S RADISSON ENTRANCE Radisson Inn Road Cul -de -sac S S RADISSON RD Old Market Rd Christmas Lake Road S S RAMPART CT Wood Drive Cul -de -sac S RIVIERA LA Yellowstone Trail Cul -de -sac S RUSTIC WAY Sunset La Forest Drive S S SEAMANS DR Yellowstone Trail Mann Lane S SERVICE RD E Old Market Road Vine Hill Road South S S SERVICE RD W SHADY HILLS CIR Shady Hills Road Shady Hills Road S SHADY HILLS RD Vine Hill Road Shady Hills Alley S S SHADY ISLAND CIR Shady Island Road Shady Island Road S SHADY ISLAND PT Shady Island Circle Dead End S SHADY ISLAND RD Shady Island Bridge Dead End S SHADY ISLAND TR Shady Island Circle Dead End S SHADY LA Shady Hills Road Cul -de -sac S S SHORE RD Radisson Inn Road Dead End S S SHOREWOOD LA Smithtown Road Cul -de -sac S SHOREWOOD OAKS DR Strawberry Lane State Highway #7 S S SIERRA CIR Silver Lake Trail Cul -de -sac S S SILVER LAKE TR Sweetwater Curve Near Mountain Boulevard S S Q i SMITHTOWN CIR Smithtown Road Cul -de -sac S ( S SMITHTOWN LA Smithtown Road Cul -de -sac S S SMITHTOWN RD South city limits (Vict) CR No. 19 S S SMITHTOWN WAY Smithtown Rd Cul- de- sacs) S S SPRUCE HILL CT Yellowstone Trail Cul -de -sac S S ST ALBANS BAY RD N Excelsior Boulevard Minnetonka Dr S S Nage 4 City of Shorewood - 20 Year Street Maintenance Program Planned Yearly Activities Updated 1/23115 Deferred = D Reconstruct = Reclaim = M Overlay = Sealcoat = S Street Name from to 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ST ALBANS BAY RD S Excelsior Boulevard St. Albans Bay Cir. S S STAR CIR Star Lane Cul-de -sac S S STAR LA Smithtown Road Cul- de-sac S S STRATFORD PL Apple Road Cul -de -sac S S STRAWBERRY CT Strawberry Lane Cut -de -sac S S STRAWBERRY LA Smithtown Road West 62nd Street S SUBURBAN DR Rustic Way St. Albans Bay Road S S SUMMIT AVE Murray Hill Road South city limits (Chan) S S SUNNYVALE LA Meadowview Lane Eureka Road S S SWEETWATER CIR Sweetwater Curve Cul -de -sac S S SWEETWATER CT Sweetwater Curve Cul -de -sac S S SWEETWATER CUR Covington Road Cul -de -sac S S SYLVAN LA Wild Rose Lane Cul -de -sac S TEAL CIR Wedgewood Drive Cul -de -sac S S TEE TR Yellowstone Trail Wood Drive S S TIMBER LA Smithtown Road Cul -de -sac S S VALLEYWOOD CIR Valleywood Lane Cul -de -sac S S VALLEYWOOD LA Eureka Road Dead End S S VINE HILL RD State Highway #7 South city limits (Chan) S S VINE RIDGE RD Covington Road Convington Road S S VINE ST Manor Road East city limits (Dphn) S S VIRGINIA COVE Smithtown Rd Cul -de -sac (e) S S WATERFORD CIR Waterford Place Cul -de -sac S S WATERFORD CT Old Market Road Waterford Ct. ( Loop) S S WATERFORD PL Old Market Road Vine Hill Road S S WEDGEWOOD DR Smithtown Road Cul -de -sac S S WEST LA Rustic Way Garden Road S WHITNEY CIR Near Mountain Boulevard Cul -de -sac S S WILD ROSE LA E Sylvan Eureka Road S WILD ROSE LA W Grant Lorenz Road Sylvan S WILTSEY LA Pleasant Avenue Cul -de -sac S S WOOD DR State Highway #7 Cul -de -sac S S WOOD DUCK CIR Smithtown Road Cul -de -sac S S WOODEND PL St Albans Bay Road Forest Drive S S WOODSIDE LA Woodside Road Cul -de -sac S S WOODSIDE RD Howards Point Road Cul -de -sac S S YELLOWSTONETR Seamans Dr Academy Avenue S S Page 5 1/26/2015 City of Shorewood Financial Management Plan January 23, 2015 Street Maintenance Fund - This fund covers expenditures related to street reconstruction and sealcoating 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Actual Estimated Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected REVENUES 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Beginning Balance 1,760,337 2,143,328 1,301,164 921,964 587,364 40,764 36,164 (1,136,736) (1,396,836) (2,084,536) (1,742,936) (2,289,936) MSA Maintenance Money Interest Earnings 9,013 10,700 6,500 4,600 2,900 200 200 (5,700) (7,000) (10,400) (8,700) (11,400) Transfers in 714,000 725,000 740,000 755,000 770,000 785,000 800,000 815,000 830,000 845,000 860,000 875,000 Total Revenue 723,013 735,700 746,500 759,600 772,900 785,200 800,200 809,300 823,000 834,600 851,300 863,600 EXPENDITURES CAPITAL OUTLAY Other Improvements 340,022 1,577,864 1,125,700 1,094,200 1,319,500 789,800 1,973,100 1,069,400 1,510,700 493,000 1,398,300 597,600 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 340,022 1,577,864 1,125,700 1,094,200 1,319,500 789,800 1,973,100 1,069,400 1,510,700 493,000 1,398,300 597,600 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 340,022 1,577,864 1,125,700 1,094,200 1,319,500 789,800 1,973,100 1,069,400 1,510,700 493,000 1,398,300 597,601 Revenue over /(under) 382,991 (842,164) (379,200) (334,600) (546,600) (4,600) (1,172,900) (260,100) (687,700) 341,600 (547,000) 265,999 Ending Fund Balance 2,143,328 1,301,164 921,964 587,364 40,764 36,164 (1,136,736) (1,396,836) (2,084,536) (1,742,936) (2,289,936) (2,023,937) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Expenditures 1,577,864 1,125,700 1,094,200 1,319,500 789,800 1,973,100 1,069,400 1,510,700 493,000 1,398,300 597,601 Fund Balance 1,301,164 921,964 587,364 40,764 36,164 (1,136,736) (1,396,836) (2,084,536) (1,742,936) (2,289,936) (2,023,937) 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 (500,000) (1,000,000) (1,500,000) (2,000,000) (2,500,000) - • Expenditures • Fund Balance 1 Item #7 t • Item #8 III j �; St-antec January 22, 2015 File; TBD Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 2335 Highway 36 West, St. Paul MN 55113 -3819 Attention: Mayor and City Council Members C/4 Bill Joynes, City Administrator 5755 Country Club Road Fxcelsior, Minnesota 55331 -8926 Dear Mayor and Council Members, Reference: Minnetonka Country Club Redevelopment Planning Process; Recommended Council Work During the January 29 Retreat We are grateful for the opportunity to assist the City as you plan for the redevelopment of the Minnetonka Country Club property. This project is almost certainly the most significant land use issue to come before the Council in decades. In response to your request we designed a planning process and identified roles and responsibilities for all of the participants and a working schedule, This was essentially done in a vacuum, since we did not have the opportunity to meet with the Council in preparation of our proposal. This is a significant fact since the key to the success of the process is that everything about it is Intended to support the Council in your decision making as you seek to accomplish your vision for the future of this site and its surroundings. Since being selected as your consultants we have had additional conversations and now have a better understanding of the issues associated with this project and expectations for the community's response. We have made some modifications to the focus and sequence of some of the steps In our process and since this is a dynamic process we expect that there may be additional shifts as we proceed through the process. KEY POINTS: i . The whole purpose of this process is to helb and suraaort you in your decision making, We will give you advice and counsel, but when you have the information you need to make decisions our job is to help find the best ways to accomplish your aspirations, 2. It is premature and inappropriate to make final decisions about any aspect of this project at your retreat on January 29. What is timely and necessary is for you to reach consensus about the scope of the planning process and whether or not any surrounding area land should be studied for.00tential Inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan amendment and /or redevelopment planning process. Design with community in m4id January 22, 2015 Attention Page 2 of 6 Reference: Reference 3. it is also important and constructive to have a conversation and reach a common understanding about The City's relationship with the developer during this planning process. We feel strongly that there is some essential Initial work (like your retreat) that the City should do on its own before inviting the developer's participation After the initial City vision and goal setting focused sessions our recommendation will be to share every work product and discussion with the Developer and provide opportunities for their responses and contributions, We would recommend taking full advantage of any Information or resources that the Developer has already invested in and invite them to offer any suggestions they may have about alternative ways to accomplish community goals. It will be our job to make certain that the developer's input is at the planning process level and does not shift in to advocacy for their Concept Plan, The underlying principle here is that we do not view the Developer as the Council's adversary. They will be making a very substantial investment in your community and creating a development that will result in likely more than a $100 million dollar total investment in Shorewood. Shaping this working relationship based on clear expectations, strong communication and mutually beneficial actions should be a cornerstone of this process. JANUARY 29 RETREAT For the purposes of this planning process there are a handful of key questions that the City Council should discuss and provide direction on: 1. Who should be the primary working group through this planning process? Our proposal recommended the appointment of an Advisory Committee that would augment (but include in total) the Planning Commission. You could take the position that the Council wants and needs to be more hands on throughout the process and if so we could opt for Joint City Council /Planning Commission workshops throughout the process. You might also simply charge the Planning Commission with this task, Following these retreat questions we will provide more explanation of the Advisory Committee option. 2. Is the Council interested in,exploring the pqgLlUllity of any housing types other than single family detached units, either on the golf course property or in the vicinity? 3. Does the Council support the exploration of possible ways to leverage the value associated with the golf course redevelopment to improve the quality and expedite the timing of redevelopment surrounding the County Road 19 /Smithtown Bay Road /Country Club Road intersections? Deer jn with cc,)rnmuni #y in mh'i d January 22, 2015 Atie;ntion Page 3 of b Reference: Reference Whether or not the golf course redevelopment and the adjacent redevelopment is combined into the same over - arching redevelopment financing strategy, does the Council view the planning for the adjacent redevelopment as something that needs to be carefully thought through before signing off on the final plans for the golf course redevelopment? 4. Should the planning process i valu of potential realignments of Country Club Road? 5. Should the pluses and minuses of park dedication (in land) on the golf course be fully explored? Should the potential sale and reuse of the existing park next to City Nall be explored? WORKING GROUP OPTIONS: As previously mentioned our proposal was for you to appoint a planning Advisory Committee to augment the Planning Commission and serve as the primary working group through this process, By providing this degree of separation between the Council and Committee it can provide a bit of a buffer for the Council and protect your role as ultimate decision makers. The explanation for this approach is that this is an extremely important set of decisions that will have a significant and multi- faceted set of impacts on the entire community, Before the Council makes these critical decisions you want the benefit of all of the input from the community, your advisory commissions, staff, consultants and the developer. The Council will have full access to all of the materials and a summary of all of the discussion at every meeting throughout the process. We can also facilitate communication between the Council and Committee during the process if necessary, The idea of augmenting the Planning Commission with selected representatives from the broader community was presented to the Commission this week and they liked the idea, They also repeated the concern about the difficulty of getting community members to participate. We opted for the idea of scheduling the meetings on the existing Planning Commission meeting dates. If you feel the need to be more hands on and engaged in the planning process we can and will structure and facilitate the meetings and discussion to respect your roles as the ultimate decision makers. This can be done and if this is your preference we are confident we can conduct a successful process with this approach too. DPSign with c;ornrnunity in inind January 22, 2015 Attention Page 4 of b Reference: Reference Planning Advisory Committee The following information is presented just to more fully describe the concept, It is not Intended to hard sell the idea, If you have different ideas or expectations we are happy to adapt our approach, PURPOSE OF THE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE The purpose of the Minnetonka County Club Redevelopment Planning Advisory Committee is two -fold - first to engage and inform a selected group of community representatives about numerous issues that will affect the future of the project area and second to facilitate a process through which the participants can provide input regarding every aspect of the redevelopment project to the developer and City Council, DESIRED OUTCOMES o A very well informed Committee Clear and comprehensive information regarding the Committee's opinions on a wide range of project issues, A Developer with an excellent understanding of community aspirations and concerns, • A Project Concept Plan and Community Strategy that incorporates, to the extent possible, elements and characteristics that respond positively to community input. KEY POINT ® The Shorewood City Council is not delegating its authority to make the key decisions regarding this important project. The Committee's work is advisory to the Council and all of its advisory commissions. All of the standing advisory commissions will participate in their established roles and none of them are bound by an aspect of this process. E : ;!,gn with (,cornmr ..inify h, mind EF January 22, 2015 Attention Page 5 of 6 Reference: Reference ADVISORY COMMITTEE ROLE Perhaps the best way to describe the role of the Advisory Committee is as a sophisticated focus group. They represent a selected cross section of interests within the community. They can and should contain members who live in the surrounding neighborhoods, but they should not be om_1 ated the qppt� r�rl�r� ds. They will be provided with a substantial amount of background information and their opinions (including minority viewpoints) will be recorded on every relevant issue. The following is an example of a "Stakeholders Advisory Panel" we facilitated for the Roseville Twin Lakes redevelopment project. It is just being shored to help you think about potential community members to invite to join the Committee, Ai • HRA - Chair or Representative • Planning Commission - Chair or Representative • Public Works Commission - Chair or Representative • Transportation Commission - Chair or Representative • Utilities Commission - Chair or Representative • Parks Commission - Chair or Representative Human Rights Commission - Chair or Representative • 2 representatives of Northwest /Brenner neighborhood 2 representatives of East side of Langton Lake neighborhood 2 representatives of East of Fairview neighborhood 0 2 representatives of the James Addition neighborhood • One at -large member - City resident not if affected area • Area Business /Property Owners DISCUSSION OF OTHER ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES CITY STAFF ROLE • The City staff will provide information and assist the Consultants in preparing all presentations. Desion with co-yi, r unity in min January 22, 2015 Attention Page 6 of 6 Reference: Reference Staff will attend meetings with the facilitator after every workshop and will work with the facilitator to complete meeting notes, ® With the Consultant's assistance the Staff will administer the web site and MindMixer site. An example will be shared with the Council on the 29th. Staff will also work with the facilitator to prepare and present periodic update presentations to the City Council, DEVELOPER'S ROLE • Receive all workshop materials and be invited to attend all of the workshops after the Initial visioning and goal setting sessions • Share information and resources to avoid wasted cost or duplication • Provide input, including suggestions for alternative ideas throughout the process. • Honor and support the process and coordinate their project planning and community engagement activities to compliment and not compete with the City process We look forward to meeting with the City Council at your retreat on January 29. This is an exciting and challenging project that can and should have a tremendously positive impact on the future of the Shorewood community. We are honored to have the opportunity to assist you as you make all of the important decisions that will shape these outcomes, Sincerely, STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC. /Phone: hardlow, FAICP ncipal 1) 967 4560 Fax: (651) 636 -1311 John.Shardlow @stantec,com sJ docurnent3 What is TIF? Tax increment financing (TIF) uses the increased property taxes that a new real estate development generates to finance costs of the development. In Minnesota, TIF is used for two basic purposes: • To induce or cause a development or redevelopment that otherwise would not occur —e.g., to convince a developer to build an office building, retail, industrial, or housing development that otherwise would not be constructed. To do so, the increased property taxes are used to pay for costs (e.g., land acquisition or site preparation) that the developer would normally pay. • To finance public infrastructure (streets, sewer, water, or parking facilities) that are related to the development. In some cases, the developer would be required to pay for this infrastructure through special assessments or other charges. In other cases, all taxpayers would pay through general city taxes. How does TIF When a new TIF district is created, the county auditor certifies (1) the current work? net tax capacity (i.e., property tax base) of the TIF district and (2) the local property tax rates. As the net tax capacity of the district increases, the property taxes (i.e., the "tax increment ") paid by this increase in value is dedicated and paid to the development authority. The tax increment is limited to the tax derived from the certified tax rate. Increases in value that generate increment may be caused by construction of the development or by general inflation in property values. The authority uses the increment to pay qualifying costs (e.g., land acquisition, site preparation, and public infrastructure) that it has incurred for the TIF project. How is TIF used to There is a mismatch between when most TIF costs must be paid —at the pay "upfront" beginning of a development —and when increments are received —after the development costs? development is built and begins paying higher property taxes. Three basic financing techniques are used to finance these upfront costs: • Bonds. The authority or municipality (city or county) may issue its bonds to pay these upfront costs and use increment to pay the bonds back. Often, extra bonds are issued to pay interest on the bonds ( "capitalizing" interest) until increments begin to be received. • Interfund loans. In some cases, the authority or city may advance money from its own funds (e.g., a development fund or sewer and water fund) and use the increments to reimburse the fund. • Pay -as- you -go financing. The developer may pay the costs with its own funds. The increments, then, are used to reimburse the developer for these costs. This type of developer financing is often called "pay -as- you -go" or "pay -go" financing. What governmental Minnesota authorizes development authorities to use TIF. These authorities are units can use TIF? primarily housing and redevelopment authorities (HRAs), economic development authorities (EDAs), port authorities, and cities. In addition, the "municipality" (usually the city) in which the district is located must approve the TIF plan and some key TW decisions. TIF uses the property taxes imposed by all types of local governments. But the school district and county, the two other major entities imposing property taxes, are generally limited to providing comments to the development authority and city on proposed uses of TIF. The state - imposed tax on commercial- industrial and seasonal - recreational properties is not captured by TIF. What is the but for Before an authority may create a TIF district, it and the city must make "but-for" test? findings that (1) the development would not occur without TIF assistance and (2) that the market value of the TIF development will be higher (after subtracting the value of the TIF assistance) than what would occur on the site, if TIF were not used. What types of TIF Minnesota allows several different types of TIF districts. The legal restrictions districts may be on how long increments may be collected, the sites that qualify, and the created? purposes for which increments may be used vary with the type of district. District type Use of Increment Maximum duration Redevelopment Redevelop blighted areas 25 years Renewal and renovation Redevelop areas with obsolete uses, not meeting blight test 1.5 years Economic development Encourage manufacturing and other footloose industries 8 years Housing Assist low- and moderate - income housing 25 years Soils Clean up contaminated sites 20 years Compact development Redevelop commercial areas with more dense developments 25 years How many TIF According to the 2014 report of the Office of State Auditor (OSA), there were districts exist? 1,784 active TIF districts in 2012. The graph shows the relative shares by type of district. TIF Districts by Type in 2012 (1,784 districts) For more information: Contact legislative analyst Joel Michael at 651- 296 -5057. Also see the House Research website for more information on TIF at www. house .mn /hrd /issinfo /tifmain.aspx. The Research Department of the Minnesota House of Representatives is a nonpartisan office providing legislative, legal, and information services to the entire House. House Research Department 1 600 State Office Building I St. Paul, MN 55155 1651-296-6753 1 www.house.mn /hrd /hrd.htm P4 m u C; CD CA ti a v 5� CA U. cq CA 4` 5:.. r s C) C14 ff14� Tom' lonuuv m HOUSE RESEARCH 1 Short Subjects Joel Michael Updated: June 2012 �' 1 1. . 1 1 1 1 1, 1 1 What is economic Minnesota law authorizes political subdivisions to grant property tax abatements development for economic development (e.g., to encourage a business to locate or expand at a property tax location or to redevelop an area). Minn. Stat. §§ 469.1813- 469.1816. abatement? Abatements may be either permanent forgiveness or temporary deferral of property tax. Abatements can serve similar purposes to tax increment financing (TIF), a widely used development tool. The legislature enacted the abatement law in 1997 to provide an alternative to TIF and to supplement it. These economic development tax abatements should be distinguished from property tax abatements that are granted by the county board primarily to correct errors (e.g., to reduce the assessor's market value or to change the classification of the property). Minn. Stat. § 375.192. For what purposes The law allows abatements to be used for a broad range of projects and may abatements be purposes, if the political subdivision finds that public benefits exceed the costs. used? Permitted uses of abatements include the following: • General economic development, such as increasing the tax base or the number of jobs in the area • Construction of public facilities or infrastructure (e.g., streets and roads) • Redevelopment of blighted areas • Providing access to services for residents (e.g., housing or retail would be common examples) • Deferring or phasing in a large (over 50 percent) property tax increase • Stabilizing the tax base resulting from the updated utility valuation administrative rules • Providing relief for businesses with estimated market value of $250,000 or less who have disrupted access due to public transportation projects Which local Counties, cities, towns, and school districts may grant abatements of the taxes governments can they impose. The governing body grants an abatement by resolution. For grant abatements? towns, action at the town meeting is not required. Taxes imposed by special taxing districts (e.g., watersheds or regional agencies) cannot be abated. Similarly, the state general property tax (on commercial /industrial and seasonal - recreational properties) cannot be abated. In the Twin Cities metropolitan area and on the Iron Range, the fiscal disparities tax cannot be explicitly abated. However, a political subdivision may increase its abatement amount to reflect the amount of the tax imposed under fiscal disparities. The abatement does not directly enter into the fiscal disparities calculations. How long does an The political subdivision sets the length of the abatement, which cannot exceed abatement apply? 15 years. The term can be extended to 20 years if only two of the three political subdivisions (city /town, county, and school district) grant an abatement. What is the The total amount of property taxes abated may not exceed the larger of: limitation on • 10 percent of the net tax capacity of the political subdivision, or abatements? • $200,000. How do the The abatement resolution, approved by the political subdivision, specifies the mechanics of duration and the amount of property taxes that will be abated. The political abatement work? subdivision has considerable flexibility in setting the terms of the abatement; for Total example, it may set the abatement as a percentage of tax payable, a dollar $12,245,475 amount, tax attributable to a portion of the parcel's market value, or something else. The local government adds the abatement to its property tax levy for the year. (The abatement levy is not subject to levy limits.) The owner pays property tax on a parcel and the political subdivision uses the payments as provided by the abatement resolution. For example, the abatement may be used to pay bonds or be given back to the property owner. May abatements be The abatement law authorizes the issuance of bonds to be paid back with the used to pay bonds? abatements. For example, bonds could be issued to construct public improvements or to pay for a site for a business. As the property owners pay the abated taxes, they are used to pay the bonds. These bonds can be general obligation bonds or revenue bonds. The abatement bond provisions parallel those in the TIF law: the abatement bonds are not subject to referendum approval and are excluded from debt limits. How do abatements The legislature designed the abatement law as an alternative to and a supplement compare with TIF? to TIF. The two programs can be used for similar purposes and both rely upon property tax funding. Both programs have very similar bonding powers. However, abatement and TIF differ in important respects. Some differences include: • TIF can be used for longer durations (up to 25 years in some cases) than abatements (typically 15 years) • TIF requires approval only by the municipality (usually the city) to capture all local property taxes, while abatement requires each entity's approval to capture its taxes and cannot capture special district taxes • TIF use is subject to more legal restrictions than abatement. These include a blight test for redevelopment districts, but -for findings, and stricter Limits on what increments may be spent on. Abatement is more flexible. How widely has The following amounts of abatement abatement been levies were reported for property taxes used? payable in 2011, as reported to the Departments of Revenue (cities and counties) and Education (schools). For more information: Contact legislative analyst Joel Michael at joel.michael @house.mn. Also see the House Research publication Tax Increment Financing, October 2011. The Research Department of the Minnesota House of Representatives is a nonpartisan office providing legislative, legal, and information services to the entire House. House Research Department 1 600 State Office Building I St. Paul, MN 55155 1 651 - 296 -6753 1 www.house.mn /hrd /hrd.htm Number Amount Cities 62 $8,152,836 Counties 31 3,211,570 Schools 8 881,069 Total 101 $12,245,475 For more information: Contact legislative analyst Joel Michael at joel.michael @house.mn. Also see the House Research publication Tax Increment Financing, October 2011. The Research Department of the Minnesota House of Representatives is a nonpartisan office providing legislative, legal, and information services to the entire House. House Research Department 1 600 State Office Building I St. Paul, MN 55155 1 651 - 296 -6753 1 www.house.mn /hrd /hrd.htm ,.n Springsted Financing Options for Minnesota Cities Cities in Minnesota have broad authority to issue General Obligation Bonds without a referendum to meet their capital needs. The following list outlines the primary authorities used by cities to finance capital projects. All of the authorities listed below allow cities to secure the bonds with a general obligation pledge. Improvement Bonds (M.S. 429) • Purpose: Street improvement projects whereby the benefiting property pays at least 20% of project cost • Voter Approval: Not as long as the 20% test is met • Board Approval: Majority vote of the governing body • Subject to Statutory Debt Limit: No • Other Statutory Limitations: No • Term Limitations: 30 years • Cities must hold public hearing ordering the project before bonds can be sold • Cities must hold public hearing setting assessment and comply with notification requirements in statute • Assessments may be set before or after bonds are sold • Amount of the assessment cannot exceed the value added to the property • Tax exempt properties, i.e. churches, schools, and non - profits, pay assessments 2. Equipment Certificates (M.S. 412.301) • Purpose: Public safety, road and maintenance equipment, software and other capital equipment • Voter Approval: No • Board Approval: Two - thirds of government body • Subject to Statutory Debt Limit: Yes • Other Statutory Limitations: Total principal amount issued in a fiscal year cannot exceed 0,25 percent of the estimated market value in the city for that year • Term Limitations: 10 Years from the date of issue; software and equipment must have an expected useful life at least as long as the term of the certificates • Public hearing required only if the principal exceeds 0.25 percent of estimated market value Capital Improvement Plan Bonds (M.S. 475.521) • Purpose: Acquisition or betterment of public lands, city hall, library, public safety facilities and public works facilities. Does not include light rail transit, parks, roads, bridges or other administrative buildings. • Voter Approval: No; subject to reverse referendum if 5% of electorate in last general election sign petition • Board Approval: Three - fifths of government body; Two - thirds on seven- member boards • Subject to Statutory Debt Limit: Yes • Other Statutory Limitations: Maximum principal and interest due in any one year on all outstanding bonds issued under M.S. 475.521 cannot exceed 016 percent of the estimated market value in the city. • Term Limitations: 30 years • Cities must establish five -year CIP and address eight criteria outlined in M.S. 475.521 • Cities must hold public hearing on the CIP and intent to issue bonds • Public hearing notification must be in the official newspaper at least 14 days but no more than 28 days prior to the hearing • Reverse referendum period begins the day after the public hearing February 2013 Public Sector Advisors Springsted 4. Street Reconstruction Plan Bonds (M.S. 475.58 Subd. 3) • Purpose: Utility replacement and relocation, turn lanes and other improvements having a substantial public safety function, realignments and other modifications to intersect with state and county roads, and the local share of state and county roads. Does not include widening streets or adding curb and gutter, • Voter Approval: No; subject to reverse referendum if 5% of electorate in last general election sign petition • Board Approval: Unanimous approval of the members present • Subject to Statutory Debt Limit: Yes • Other Statutory Limitations: No • Cities must establish five -year plan that describes the street reconstruction to be financed, estimated costs and any planned reconstruction of other streets in the municipality • Cities must hold public hearing on the plan and intent to issue bonds • Public hearing notification must be in the official newspaper at least 10 days but no more than 28 days prior to the hearing • Reverse referendum period begins the day after the public hearing 5. Utility Revenue Bonds (M.S. 444) • Purpose: Build, construct, reconstruct, repair, enlarge and maintain waterworks, sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems, or any portion of the systems. • Voter Approval: No • Board Approval: Majority vote of the governing body • Subject to Statutory Debt Limit: No • Other Statutory Limitations: No • Net revenue of the utilities are pledged to the repayment of the bonds • Utilities must maintain net revenues adequate to pay all principal and interest when due and maintain reserves securing the payment of the bonds • Real estate taxes (levy) may only be used on a temporary basis when net revenues are not sufficient 6. Abatement Bonds (M.S. 469.1813 and 469.1814) • Purpose: Finance or construct public improvements that increase or preserve the tax base, to help acquire or construct public facilities, to acquire or convey land for economic development purposes, to provide employment opportunities, or to help provide services to city residents • Voter Approval: No • Board Approval: Majority vote of the governing body • Subject to Statutory Debt Limit: No • Other Statutory Limitations: Maximum principal amount of bonds issued under the abatement authority cannot exceed the estimated sum of the abatements for the years authorized. • Cities must hold public hearing to establish the abatement • Public hearing notification must be in the official newspaper at least 10 days but no more than 30 days prior to the hearing. The notice must identify the property(s) abated and specify the total estimated amount to be abated. • Cities may grant an abatement for up to 15 years (20 years if either the County or School District participate) • Maximum amount of abatement in any given year cannot exceed the greater of 10% of the net tax capacity of the city or $200,000. February 2013 Public Sector Advisors Item #9 Future Trail Projects Timing and AB _ __ i Smil n Ro �+ m Sitlewelk Pmjed ford* Ci or M Shorewood, nneeom i Ly I ap, = GalPin Le I � MuneY Mayfy�Rd - it ' CRY of M City of Chenhauen(CARVER COUNry�� (NEN_NEPIN C OU NIYJ GelPin Lake Ro As °,tia' ° ° "° Slde lk PrejecM fortheC of Shorewood, M nneeota sh ffy fsee Side lk Prejed for the clttyy of Shorewood, Mloeeeote e., me 1 1 1 U Q City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Title / Subject: Trail Construction CIP Costs Meeting Date: January 29, 2015 Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director Reviewed by: Bill Joynes, City Administrator Larry Brown, Director of Public Works Paul Hornby, City Engineer, Attachments: 20 Year Street Maintenance Schedule Policy Consideration: How should the City manage the cost of trail construction? i q i MEETING TYPE Council —Staff Retreat Background: Trail construction has been a significant topic of discussion for several years. The cost estimates have risen dramatically based on experience in constructing the Smithtown Road West segment and the bidding environment experienced last year. If and how much the bidding environment has changed will be of great interest as we develop plans for the current trails. The trails that are under consideration are the segments of Smithtown Road East from Eureka to County Road 19 and Excelsior Boulevard from the Greenwood border to Barrington Court in 2015. In 2016, we contemplate going back Galpin Lake Road from Hwy 7 to the Chanhassen border. The last trail segment planned at this point is the Strawberry Lane trail to be constructed in conjunction with the Strawberry Lane and West 62nd Street reconstruction. Financing for these trails is challenging because there are multiple possible funding sources. The trails along Smithtown Road and Galpin Lake Road are eligible for MSA reimbursement since they are part of the MSA street system. The funding comes annually, so we have to be patient for reimbursement to come each year as funds are deposited to our account the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Not all costs are eligible for MSA reimbursement. We have applied for and receive about $760,000 for the Smithtown Road East segment in 2014. We will continue to draw against those qualified costs until the full reimbursement is reached. In order to fully fund the remaining costs, we will need additional cash sources. As discussed at the CIP work session last year, that could come from transfers in from enterprise funds, bonding or additional tax levy dollars. There is also a possibility of having the developer fund a significant portion of the Smithtown segment since the trail is planned to be on the south side of the road and abut the Minnetonka Country Club property that is planned to be redeveloped. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 There are still a large number of segments that were originally contemplated by the Trail Committee. These are shown on the CIP sheet in 2024 just to remind the Council about the initial discussion of trail segments to be considered. These costs have not been updated to reflect the current bidding environment, so please use the information only to give a general indication of the magnitude of each trail. While this seems like a daunting amount of project costs to cover, there are tools and strategies that we can use to minimize the impact on our residents. While the costs are ultimately borne by the taxpayers, financing methods can minimize the annual effect and allow us to smoothly merge the costs of financing street projects with the end of our public safety debt service. O O O rl O O 4t (:4 O O 1. C, C, CQ C Q Q Q Q Q Z c C Z C zz zZQQO Q, lz� lz:� ll-� Qi lzt lr lz:� Q, C', lz:� ll� C, O 10 M O N Lo 'n CO z) 'd c5 M ---4- Lo O m cz> o1 C> cli c-� co I- co Lo (� Lo M col C) 1=1 CD <D CD I=> 0 O IX) Iz, cD LO (D Lo vi c� =� cl� c::i cl� cli Lo lo �o c� <D cD m m Lo In �D CD CIIT co CD M cq CD C-1 Z) O CD CAS F� O . � O Qy N ® N 00 O in O O 4t (:4 O O 1. C, C, CQ C Q Q Q Q Q Z c C Z C zz zZQQO Q, lz� lz:� ll-� Qi lzt lr lz:� Q, C', lz:� ll� C, O 10 M O N Lo 'n CO z) 'd c5 M ---4- Lo O m cz> o1 C> cli c-� co I- co Lo (� Lo M col C) 1=1 CD <D CD I=> 0 O IX) Iz, cD LO (D Lo vi c� =� cl� c::i cl� cli Lo lo �o c� <D cD m m Lo In �D CD CIIT co CD M cq CD C-1 Z) C, CD o ce 00 tc� It I= CD ID si co cn cl� O O O O rg O U, o CD CIIT U.) Co cn M O O O O O 1-1 CAS F� in 0 Cu cu 0 is -13 w cu ca > 0 ca _j 0 0 0 0 C, 02 7L 2 e)) 0 - CD Li C/) w w 0 w CO O w U Cl) :E w w m 1-1 1/26/2015 City of Shorewood Financial Management Plan January 23, 2015 Trail Construction Fund - This fund covers expenditures related to local trails REVENUES Projected 2015 Projected 2016 Projected 2017 Projected 2018 Projected 2019 Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Beginning Balance 513,829 (810,565) (320,949) (4,343) 307,263 (239,131) 59,475 59,475 59,475 59,475 59,475 59,475 59,475 59,475 Interest Earnings - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ M SA (1,324,394) 489,616 316,606 311,606 (546,394) 298,606 - - - - - _ _ _ Grants (810,565) (320,949) (4,343) 307,263 (239,131) 59,475 59,475 59,475 59,475 59,475 59,475 59,475 59,475 59,475 Transfers in from MSA - 405 315,606 320,606 316,606 311,606 305,606 298,606 Transfers in from Enterprise or bonding 1,640,000 1,330,000 - - 852,000 - - - - - - _ _ _ Transfers in from Comm Infr Fund - 450 (810,565) 169,010 - - - - Total Revenue 315,606 1,819,616 316,606 311,606 305,606 298,606 EXPENDITURES CAPITAL OUTLAY Other Improvements 1,640,000 1,330,000 - 852,000 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,640,000 1,330,000 - - 852,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,640,000 1,330,000 - - 852,000 - Revenue over /(under) (1,324,394) 489,616 316,606 311,606 (546,394) 298,606 - - - - - _ _ _ Ending Fund Balance (810,565) (320,949) (4,343) 307,263 (239,131) 59,475 59,475 59,475 59,475 59,475 59,475 59,475 59,475 59,475 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 1,640,000 1,330,000 - - 852,000 - - - - - - _ _ _ (810,565) (320,949) (4,343) 307,263 (239,131) 59,475 59,475 59,475 59,475 59,475 59,475 59,475 59,475 59,475 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 ■ Expenditures 500,000 ® Fund Balance 20 20 2017 2018 20 2020 2021 2022 2023 (500,000) (1,000,000) 1 Item #10 AM