Loading...
092506 CC WS AgP CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2006 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. AGENDA 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION A. Roll Call Mayor Love _ Lizee Turgeon _ Callies Wellens B. Review Agenda 2. PROPOSED 2006 G.O. WATER REVENUE BOND SALE (Att. - Finance Director's memorandum) 3. CHANGES TO SICK LEAVE AND SEVERANCE BENEFITS (Att. - Staff memorandum) 4. REQUEST FOR DEER REMOVAL (Att. - Administrator's memorandum) 5. ACTIVITY INDICATORS (Att. - Administrator's memorandum) 6. OTHER 7. ADJOURN CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 . (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128. www.cLshorewood.mn.us . cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us Celebrating 50 Years. 1956 - 2006 MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: Re: Cc: September 19, 2006 Honorable Mayor and City Council Member Bonnie Burton, Finance Director/Treasurer Proposed 2005 G.O. Water Revenue Bond Issue Craig Dawson, City Administrator 0\::> Paul Donna, the City's bond consultant from Northland Securities, will be present at the September 25 work-session to describe the proposed financing and answer any questions the City Council may have regarding issuance of 2006 G. O. Water Revenue Bonds. Attached for your review are funding analysis scenarios for a IS-year and 20-year issues. The projects that will be funded with this bond issue include: Woodhaven Interconnect ($275,000); SE Amesbury Connection ($880,000); and the water p0l1ion of the Wedgewood, Mallard, Teal Project ($250,000). Typically, after the Council authorizes issuing the bonds, the issue is then prepared and the bonds are priced. The City Council would then be asked to consider a resolution awarding the bond sale and approving final interest rates and terms. Should the bond issue not occur, the City would not incur any expenses to N0l1hland Securities. Mr. Donna may have additional information to distribute to the City Council at the work- session. If you have questions or concerns prior to then, please advise staff so we may consult with Mr. Donna and be prepared with responses. 4'''' '" . PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER OIla' I I I I I I i I i i i I I I I I I I I I I i I ! $1,450,000.00 City of Shorewood, Minnesota G.O. Water Revenue Bonds, Series 2006A I (IS-Year / Wraparound Scenario Table of Contents Report Sources & Uses Debt Service Schedule 2 Net Debt Service Schedule 3 ._--~ G.O. Water Revenue Bonds. I 9/5/2006 I 8:25 AM Northland Securities Public Finance I Preliminary $1,450,000.00 City of Shorewood, Minnesota G.O. Water Revenue Bonds, Series 2006A I (IS-Year / Wraparound Scenario Sources & Uses Dated 11/01/20061 Delivered 11/01/2006 Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds $1,450,000.00 Total Sources $1,450,000.00 Uses Of Funds Total Underwriter's Discount (1.300%) Costs of Issuance Deposit to Project Construction Fund Rounding Amount 18,850.00 30,145.00 1,400,000.00 1,005.00 Total Uses $1,450,000.00 G.o. Water Revenue Bonds. I 9/5/2006 I 8:25 AM Northland Securities Public Finance Page 1 Preliminary $1,450,000.00 City of Shorewood, Minnesota G.O. Water Revenue Bonds, Series 2006A I (15- Year / Wraparound Scenario Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total 11/01/2006 07/01/2007 39,930.00 39,930.00 01/01/2008 29,947.50 29,947.50 69,877.50 07/01/2008 29,947.50 29,947.50 01101/2009 29,947.50 29,947.50 59,895.00 07/01/2009 29,947.50 29,947.50 01/01/2010 29,947.50 29,947.50 59,895.00 07/01/2010 29,947.50 29,947.50 01/01/2011 29,947.50 29,947.50 59,895.00 07/01/2011 29,947.50 29,947.50 01/01/2012 50,000.00 3.850% 29,947.50 79,947.50 109,895.00 07/01/2012 28,985.00 28,985.00 01/01/2013 120,000.00 3.900% 28,985.00 148,985.00 177,970.00 07/01/2013 26,645.00 26,645.00 01/01/2014 120,000.00 3.950% 26,645.00 146,645.00 173,290.00 07/01/2014 24,275.00 24,275.00 01/01/2015 125,000.00 4.000% 24,275.00 149,275.00 173,550.00 07/01/2015 21,775.00 21,775.00 01/01/2016 130,000.00 4.050% 21,775.00 151,775.00 173,550.00 07/01/2016 19,142.50 19,142.50 01/01/2017 140,000.00 4.100% 19,142.50 159,142.50 178,285.00 07/01/2017 16,272.50 16,272.50 01/01/2018 140,000.00 4.150% 16,272.50 156,272.50 172,545.00 07/01/2018 13,367.50 13,367.50 01/01/2019 145,000.00 4.200% 13,367.50 158,367.50 171,735.00 07/01/2019 10,322.50 10,322.50 01/01/2020 155,000.00 4.250% 10,322.50 165,322.50 175,645.00 07/01/2020 7,028.75 7,028.75 01/01/2021 160,000.00 4.300% 7,028.75 167,028.75 174,057.50 07/01/2021 3,588.75 3,588.75 01/01/2022 165,000.00 4.350% 3,588.75 168,588.75 172,177.50 Total $1,450,000.00 $652,262.50 $2,102,262.50 Yield Statistics Dated 11/01/2006 Delivery Date 11/01/2006 First Coupon Date 7/01/2007 First available call date Call Price Bond Year Dollars $15,631.67 Average Life 10.780 Years Average Coupon 4.1726996% Net Interest Cost (NIC) 4.2932882% True Interest Cost (TIC) 4.3179328% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 4.1639419% All Inclusive Cost (AIC) 4.5696269% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost 4.1726996% . Weighted Average Maturity 10.780 Years G.O. Water Revenue Bonds, I 9/5/2006 I 8:25 AM Northland Securities Public Finance Page 2 Preliminaty $1,450,000.00 City of Shorewood, M inncsota G.O. Water Revenue Bonds, Series 2006A I (IS-Year / Wraparound Scenario Net Debt Service Schedule Fiscal Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Existing D/S Net New D/S Total 11/01/2006 01/01/2007 344,632.50 344,632.50 344,632.50 07/0112007 39,930.00 39,930.00 39,930.00 01/01/2008 29,947.50 29,947.50 332,477.50 362,425.00 402,355.00 07/01/2008 29,947.50 29,947.50 29,947.50 01/01/2009 29,947.50 29,947.50 324,795.00 354,742.50 384,690.00 07/01/2009 29,947.50 29,947.50 29,947.50 01/01/2010 29,947.50 29,947.50 316,745.00 346,692.50 376,640.00 07/01/2010 29,947.50 29,947.50 29,947.50 01/01/2011 29,947.50 29,947.50 297,920.00 327,867.50 357,815.00 07/01/2011 29,947.50 29,947.50 29,947.50 01/01/2012 50,000.00 3.850% 29,947.50 79,947.50 174,155.00 254,102.50 284,050.00 07/01/2012 28,985.00 28,985.00 28,985.00 01/01/2013 120,000.00 3.900% 28,985.00 148,985.00 108,640.00 257,625.00 286,610.00 07/01/2013 26,645.00 26,645.00 26,645.00 01/0112014 120,000.00 3.950% 26,645.00 146,645.00 111,365.00 258,010.00 284,655.00 07/0112014 24,275.00 24,275.00 24,275.00 01/01/2015 125,000.00 4.000% 24,275.00 149,275.00 108,915.00 258,190.00 282,465.00 07/01/2015 21,775.00 21,775.00 21,775.00 01/01/2016 130,000.00 4.050% 21,775.00 151,775.00 111,395.00 263,170.00 284,945.00 07/01/2016 19,142.50 19,142.50 19,142.50 01/01/2017 140,000.00 4.100% 19,142.50 159,142.50 108,620.00 267,762.50 286,905.00 07/01/2017 16,272.50 16,272.50 16,272.50 01/01/2018 140,000.00 4.150% 16,272.50 156,272.50 110,770.00 267,042.50 283,315.00 07/01/2018 13,367.50 13,367.50 13,367.50 01/01/2019 145,000.00 4.200% 13,367.50 158,367.50 112,650.00 271,017.50 284,385.00 07/0112019 10,322.50 10,322.50 10,322.50 01/01/2020 155,000.00 4.250% 10,322.50 165,322.50 109,250.00 274,572.50 284,895.00 07/01/2020 7,028.75 7,028.75 7,028.75 01/01/2021 160,000.00 4.300% 7,028.75 167,028.75 110,807.00 277,835.75 284,864.50 07/01/2021 3,588.75 3,588.75 3,588.75 01/01/2022 165,000.00 4.350% 3,588.75 168,588.75 112,117.50 280,706.25 284,295.00 01/01/2023 113,175.00 113,175.00 113,175.00 01/01/2024 113,925.00 113,925.00 113,925.00 01/01/2025 109,462.50 109,462.50 109,462.50 Total $1,450,000.00 $652,262.50 $2,102,262.50 $3,231,817.00 $5,334,079.50 G.O. Water Revenue Bonds. I 9/5/2006 I 8:25 AM Northland Securities Public Finance Page 3 $1,450,000.00 City of Shorewood, Minnesota G.O. Water Revenue Bonds, Series 2006A I (20-Year / Wrap Scenario Table of Contents Report Sources & Uses Debt Service Schedule 2 Net Debt Service Schedule 4 G.O. Water Revenue Bonds, I 9/5/2006 I 8:25 AM Northland Securities Public Finance I Preliminary $1,450,000.00 City of Shorewood,Minnesota G.O. Water Revenue Bonds, Series 2006A I (20-Year / Wrap Scenario Sources & Uses Dated 11/01/2006 1 Delivered 11/01/2006 Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds $1,450,000.00 Total Sources $1,450,000.00 Uses Of Funds Total Underwriter's Discount (1.300%) Costs of Issuance Deposit to Project Construction Fund Rounding Amount 18,850.00 30,145.00 1,400,000.00 1,005.00 Total Uses $1,450,000.00 G.O. Water Revenue Bonds, I 9/5/2006 I 8:25 AM Northland Securities Public Finance Page 1 Preliminary $1,450,000.00 City of Shorcwood, Minnesota I G.O. Water Revenue Bonds, Series 2006A I (20-Year / Wrap Scenario I I I Debt Service Schedule Part 1 of 2 I Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total i 11/01/2006 07/01/2007 41,526.67 41,526.67 01/01/2008 31,145.00 31,145.00 72,671.67 07/01/2008 31,145.00 31,145.00 01/01/2009 31,145.00 31,145.00 62,290,00 07/01/2009 31,145.00 31,145,00 01/01/2010 31,145.00 31,145.00 62,290.00 07/01/2010 31,145.00 31,145.00 01/01/2011 31,145.00 31,145.00 62,290.00 07/01/2011 31,145.00 31,145.00 01/01/2012 31,145,00 31,145.00 62,290.00 07/01/2012 31,145.00 31,145.00 01/01/2013 65,000.00 3.900% 31,145.00 96,145.00 127,290.00 07/01/2013 29,877.50 29,877.50 01/01/2014 60,000.00 3.950% 29,877.50 89,877.50 119,755.00 07/01/2014 28,692.50 28,692.50 01/01/2015 65,000.00 4.000% 28,692.50 93,692.50 122,385.00 07/01/2015 27,392.50 27,392.50 01/01/2016 65,000.00 4.050% 27,392,50 92,392.50 119,785.00 07/01/2016 26,076.25 26,076.25 01/01/2017 75,000.00 4.100% 26,076.25 101,076.25 127,152.50 07/01/2017 24,538.75 24,538.75 01/01/2018 75,000.00 4.150% 24,538.75 99,538.75 124,077.50 07/01/2018 22,982.50 22,982.50 01/0112019 75,000.00 4.200% 22,982.50 97,982.50 120,965.00 07/01/2019 21,407.50 21,407.50 01/01/2020 80,000.00 4.250% 21,407.50 101,407.50 122,815.00 07/01/2020 19,707.50 19,707.50 01/01/2021 85,000.00 4.300% 19,707.50 104,707.50 124,415.00 07/01/2021 17,880.00 17,880.00 01/01/2022 85,000.00 4.350% 17,880.00 102,880.00 120,760.00 07/01/2022 16,031.25 16,031.25 01/01/2023 90,000.00 4.400% 16,031.25 106,031.25 122,062.50 07/01/2023 14,051.25 14,051.25 01/01/2024 90,000.00 4.400% 14,051.25 104,051.25 118,102.50 07/01/2024 12,071.25 12,071.25 01/01/2025 100,000.00 4.450% 12,071.25 112,071.25 124,142.50 07/01/2025 9,846.25 9,846.25 01/01/2026 215,000.00 4.450% 9,846.25 224,846.25 234,692.50 07/01/2026 5,062.50 5,062.50 01/01/2027 225,000.00 4.500% 5,062.50 230,062.50 235,125.00 Total $1,450,000.00 $935,356.67 $2,385,356.67 G.O. Water Revenue Bonds, I 9/5/2006 I 8:25 AM Northland Securities Public Finance Page 2 Preliminary $1,450,000.00 City of Shorewood, Minnesota G.O. Water Revenue Bonds, Series 2006A I (20-Year / Wrap Scenario Debt Service Schedule Part 2 of 2 Yield Statistics Dated Delivery Date First Coupon Date 11/01/2006 11/01/2006 7/01/2007 First available call date Call Price Bond Year Dollars Average Life Average Coupon $21,491.67 14.822 Years 4.3521830% Net Interest Cost (NIC) True Interest Cost (TIC) Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes Alllnciusive Cost (AIC) 4.4398914% 4.4618604% 4.3386966% 4.6633877% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost Weighted Average Maturity 4.3521830% 14.822 Years G.O. Water Revenue Bonds, I 9/5/2006 I 8:25 AM Northland Securities Public Finance Page 3 ~-_.."---~,--,-- Preliminary $1,450,000.00 City of Shorewood, Minnesota G.O. Water Revenue Bonds, Series 2006A I (20-Year / Wrap Scenario Net Debt Service Schedule Fiscal Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Existing D/S Net New D/S Total 11/01/2006 01/01/2007 344,632.50 344,632.50 344,632.50 07/01/2007 41,526.67 41,526.67 41,526.67 01/01/2008 31,145.00 31,145.00 332,477.50 363,622.50 405,149.17 07/01/2008 31,145.00 31,145.00 31,145.00 01/01/2009 31,145.00 31,145.00 324,795.00 355,940.00 387,085.00 07/01/2009 31,145.00 31,145.00 31,145.00 01/01/2010 31,145.00 31,145.00 316,745.00 347,890.00 379,035.00 07/01/2010 31,145.00 31,145.00 31,145.00 01/01/2011 31,145.00 31,145.00 297,920.00 329,065.00 360,210.00 07/01/2011 31,145.00 31,145.00 31,145.00 01/01/2012 31,145.00 31,145.00 174,155.00 20?~~0.00 236,445.00 07/01/2012 31,145.00 31,145.00 31,145.00 01/01/2013 65,000.00 3.900% 31,145.00 96,145.00 108,640.00 204,785.00 235,930.00 07/01/2013 29,877.50 29,877.50 29,877.50 01/01/2014 60,000.00 3.950% 29,877.50 89,877.50 111,365.00 201,242.50 231,120.00 07/01/2014 28,692.50 28,692.50 28,692.50 01/01/2015 65,000.00 4.000% 28,692.50 93,692.50 108,915.00 202,607.50 231,300.00 07/01/2015 27,392.50 27,392.50 27,392.50 01/01/2016 65,000.00 4.050% 27,392.50 92,392.50 111,395.00 203,787.50 231,180.00 07/01/2016 26,076.25 26,076.25 26,076.25 01/01/2017 75,000.00 4.100% 26,076.25 101,076.25 108,620.00 209,696.25 235,772.50 07/01/2017 24,538.75 24,538.75 24,538.75 01/0112018 75,000.00 4.150% 24,538.75 99,538.75 110,770.00 210,308.75 234,847.50 07/01/2018 22,982.50 22,982.50 22,982.50 01/01/2019 75,000.00 4.200% 22,982.50 97,982.50 112,650.00 210,632.50 233,615.00 07/01/2019 21,407.50 21,407.50 21,407.50 01/01/2020 80,000.00 4.250% 21,407.50 101,407.50 109,250.00 210,657.50 232,065.00 07/01/2020 19,707.50 19,707.50 19,707.50 01/01/2021 85,000.00 4.300% 19,707.5~__.1 04,707.50 110,807.00 215,514.50 235,222.00 07/01/2021 17,880.00 17,880.00 17,880.00 01/01/2022 85,000.00 4.350% 17,880.00 102,880.00 112,117.50 214,997.50 232,877.50 07/01/2022 16,031.25 16,031.25 16,031.25 01/01/2023 90,000.00 4.400% 16,031.25 106,031.25 113,175.00 219,206.25 235,237.50 07/01/2023 14,051.25 14,051.25 14,051.25 01/01/2024 90,000.00 4.400% 14,0512?_ 104,051.25 113,925.00 217,976.25 232,027.50 07/01/2024 12,071.25 12,071.25 12,071.25 01/01/2025 100,000.00 4.450% 12,071.25 112,071.25 109,462.50 221,533.75 233,605.00 07/01/2025 9,846.25 9,846.25 9,846.25 01/01/2026 215,000.00 4.450% 9,846.25 224,846.25 224,846.25 234,692.50 07/01/2026 5,062.50 5,062.50 5,062.50 01/01/2027 225,000.00 4.500% 5,062.50 230,062.50 230,062.50 235,125.00 Total $1,450,000.00 $935,356.67 $2,385,356.67 $3,231,817.00 $5,617,173.67 G.O. Water Revenue Bonds, I 9/5/2006 I 8:25 AM Northland Securities Public Finance Page 4 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128. www.ci.shorewood.mn.us . cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us Celebrating 50 Years. 1956 - 2006 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator(} Bonnie Bm10n, Director of Finance DATE: September 21,2006 SUBJECT: Changes to Sick Leave and Severance Benefits (Work Session Item) Background Full-time City employees accrue eight hours of sick leave per month. The proposed Employee Handbook will allow regular part-time employees to accrue sick leave on a pro-rated basis. Currently, there is no limit on the number of hours of sick leave an employee may accumulate over the course of his/her employment with the City. When employees terminate their employment, they are paid a p011ion of their sick leave balance, as is common in local government. This is referred to as a severance benefit and it is common in local government. In Shorewood, employees receive cash for one-third of the number of sick leave hours they have accrued in excess of 400 when they leave employment. Discussion Prudent financial management suggests the City should seek to cap its liabilities. It was with this in mind that the employee Benefits Committee considered several alternatives that would be fair to both employees and the employer. The key objectives in the plan design are: . Provide motivation to use sick leave appropriately . Simplicity, for ease of understanding and administration . Use as an incentive for employee retention 4'9< f: ~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER OIla' Page 2 The key elements in the plan design are: . An 800-hour cap on the year-end sick leave balance. (In practice, employees would continue to accrue sick leave. Any balance above 800 hours at year-end would be conve11ed at a 50% rate to payment into deferred compensation and/or grant of personal leave. Allowing continued accrual throughout the year, with a year-end 'look-back and adjustment' to 800 hours, does not invite abuse of sick leave.) . At termination of employment, employees would be paid 50% of the balance of their sick leave hours after five years of service. (This level of severance and qualifying period rewards appropriate use of sick leave and encourages several years of service. Fm1her, this benefit is more achievable and meaningful than the City's current program.) Implementation Issues There are three employees who currently are above the 800-hour cap. There are legal concerns, financial impacts, and perceived fairness issues with how to best 'buy-down' or reduce their hours to the capped amount. Legal Issues The Council has asked what legal issues may exist in regard to reducing their sick leave balances to the proposed cap. The current and proposed employee handbooks specifically reserve the right of the City Council to amend any personnel policies, and as such, there is not a contract in place between the City and non-union employees regarding these benefits. Based on conversations with the City Attomey's Office and the League of Minnesota Cities, it seems there is a wide range of latitude in how to address staff who would be subject to reduction of their sick leave balance and potential severance benefit. Financial Impact One set of alternatives proposed includes a buy-down of their severance benefits to the 800-hour cap: a. A 100% buy-out, which the employee has relied on as future benefit, if needed. The cost of this approach is $71,265, as of 8/31/2006. b. A 50% buy-out, which is the value under the proposed sick leave/severance conversion plan. The cost of this approach is $35,633, as of 8/31/2006. c. A 33% buy-out, which is what the current value would be if they terminated today. The cost of this approach is $23,518, as of 8/31/2006. Other alternatives are possible, but more complex and difficult to understand and administer: d. Cap the number of sick leave hours at 800, and apply the severance benefit to that number. Employees would no longer accrue sick leave, and would continue to use their existing accrued hours until they fall below 800. (With 800 hours as the cap for accrual and payment, at time of separation the employee should be paid the greater amount of comparing the pre-cap benefit (one-third of the hours in excess of 400) and the post-cap benefit (one-half of the hours up to 800). Page 3 e. Take a year-end snapshot at 800 hours. The amount in excess of 800 would be placed in a sick leave bank to be used for time off only. Sick leave hours would continue to accrue and the employee would be eligible for the 50% conversion of hours in excess of 800 at the next year-end snapshot to defelTed comp or personal leave. (With 800 hours as the cap for payment only, compare the pre-cap hours and benefit (one-third of the hours in excess of 400) with the post-cap severance amount (one-half of all hours up to 800), and pay the employee the greater amount.) Fairness Issues Either of alternatives (d) or (e), may encourage inappropriate use of sick leave, in addition to being difficult and complex to administer. However, the City would not be removing any sick leave that these employees have accrued. It would appear preferable to establish a single, consistent plan, and determine the appropriate rate at which to compensate the benefit of the three employees who are above the 800-hour cap. For good employee relations, the City needs to be fair and respectful toward those affected by changes. Some Alternatives At the August 7 work session, the Council requested several alternatives for the cap and severance schedule. 1. One example of a severance schedule comes from the SLMPD labor agreement. Levels of severance for police officers are based on tenure: 0- 9 years; 10-19 years; and 20+ years. Using this as a guide, the following table might be used: Service 5- 9 years 10-19 years 20+ years Severance 30% 40% 50% Max Hours 480 @ 5yrs; 800 in yr8 800 800 Max Severance 144 - 240 hI's (18 - 30 days) 320 hours (40 days) 400 hours (50 days) 2. The Council was also interested in the financial impact of a lower hourly caps and various percentage pay-outs: Max Hours Percent Buy-down No. of Employees Cost 400 hI'S 100% 9 $139,822 400 hI'S 50% 9 69,911 400 hI'S 33% 9 46,142 600 hI'S 100% 5 $ 97,281 600 hI'S 50% 5 48,641 600 hI'S 33% 5 32,103 800 hI'S 100% 3 $ 71,265 800 hI'S 50% 3 35,633 800 hI'S 33% 3 23,518 Please contact staff should you have questions prior to the work-session on sick-leave. CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128. www.cLshorewood.mn.us . cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us Celebrating 50 Years. 1956 - 2006 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator September 21, 2006 Request for Deer Removal The Minnetonka Country Club has requested that the City Council issue a permit "to eliminate the deer problem" that it is experiencing. The City generally receives a few (two to four) inquiries or demands during a year regarding removal of deer. Typically, the residents are upset that deer are eating their flowers, plants, shrubs, or young trees, and want something done immediately. I have explained that State regulations and processes (described below) prevent the City from responding immediately. Residents have been encouraged to place their request in writing for consideration by the City Council, but none have ever come forward. Deer are State resources: Deer are resources of the State of Minnesota, and management of deer is regulated by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The State manages deer populations through hunting. Anything happening outside of the hunting season requires a special removal permit from the DNR. City prohibits use of weapons: Nearly all of the cities in the metropolitan area do not allow weapons discharges (except by such authorized persons as law enforcement officers), and de facto do not allow hunting. Shorewood has two provisions in the City Code: . Sec. 603.06, Subd. 2, provides that "No person shall fire off, discharge or explode any gun, pistol or firearm. .. [ except for] any duly constituted law enforcement officer in the discharge of his or her official duties." . Chapter 703 prohibits hunting or trapping. Hunting includes the use of any firearm or weapon - "any gun, rifle, pistol, handgun, air-rifle, shotgun, airgun, BB gun, whether compressed air or spring-loaded, sling-shot, or bow and arrow." The South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) has thus far indicated it is not in the business of having its officers dispatch deer, during the State hunting season or at any other time, for purposes of managing deer populations for any of its member cities. It would, if the City amended its ordinance, be willing to authorize individuals or firms to discharge weapons for a City deer management program. 4'9> ~ t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ...... Deer Management September 25, 2006, City Council Page 2 State requirements for City deer mana2ement plan: Several metro-area cities have developed city-wide deer management plans, including the neighboring cities of Chanhassen, Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Woodland, and Deephaven. They followed requirements to develop a management plan that the DNR would ultimately approve. Key components · The management plan must be developed in a process that has public participation. This process has been controversial in some cities (e.g., Minnetonka). It can be as simple as a public hearing for comment and refinement of the City's deer management plan before the Council authorizes the plan to be sent to the DNR for approval. It can be a more extensive process if the Council wishes to do so. · An aerial census must be conducted for a City-wide plan. This census needs to be conducted when leaves are off trees, and is best done when snow is on the ground. This census generally costs $250 to $500 for smaller cities like Shorewood. o An aerial census is not required if the management plan calls for localized control, like removing deer from specific areas (like a golf course). Deer Removal: Typically, cities contract with private individuals or firms to remove deer. In the City of Deephaven plan, for instance, the deer are live-trapped (either on public property, or with permission on private prope11y). Then, the deer are shot and removed from the live traps. Deephaven contracted with a firm to shoot and remove the deer, and was charged around $335 per deer. The DNR allowed the removal of 40 deer last year. Other cities have used sharpshooters to dispatch deer at baited sites. Minnetonka Country Club request: The City Council at this time may not "issue a pern1it to eliminate the deer problem." Based on my conversation with the owner, the Country Club would like the Council to consider actions that would lead to a smaller (or no) deer population on its property. Among the alternatives available to the City Council are: 1) The Council may begin the process to develop a deer management plan in order to receive a permit from the DNR. 2) The Council may amend the City Code to allow tightly-defined deer management activities during the hunting season. This approach would not require the preparation of a deer management plan, as a DNR permit would not be required. 3) The Council may wish to encourage residents to coexist and accommodate deer, and place greater emphasis on public information resources available from such organizations as the DNR and the Minnesota Arboretum. An active deer removal program would require a budgetary commitment. At Deephaven's rate, removal of 100 deer from Shorewood would be over $30,000 annually under the DNR special permit removal approach. The City Council should provide direction to staff as to how it wishes to proceed. Since 19.16 September 1, 2006 City of Shorewood Attn: Craig Dawson, City Administrator 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Gentlemen: Ref: Deer Problem on Golf Course Weare approaching a crisis relative to the existence of the Minnetonka Country Club in the future. Our Golf Course Superintendent has informed me that the yearly increase in damage to our greens over the past few years, by a herd of now 10-11 deer, has reached a point where he no longer can maintain the normal playability of the greens which will adversely affect the retention of our golf members. The deer damage the greens throughout the year by walking/running/stomping over them with their sharp hooves, slicing the turf and indenting the surface, making it impossible to putt properly. It is an industry truism that a private golf course could have beautiful fairways, but if the greens are not up to industry standards the course will fail and the land converted to a housing development. We spend $10,000.00 each year to purchase flowers, etc. to improve the appearance of the golf course and surrounding areas. The deer also consume a large portion of the flowers. They are now eating the flowers planted right at our front entrance which have been replanted twice this year. Minnetonka Country Club was established in 1916, with the present management in place since 1954. We are a commercial operation and the deer problem is critically affecting us. The Cities of Maple Plain, Bloomington, Orono, Minnetonka, etc. have issued a permit for controlled bow and shotgun hunting during the deer season. We respectfully request the City Council to issue a permit to eliminate the deer problem. Sincerely, Minnetonka Country Club Assn., Inc. :? -' cZ,-- f ( .....v,?'L./?,-' ' B. Witrak, President Certified Mail/Return Receipt 24575 Smith town Road www.minnetonkacc.com Fax (952) 474-3514 MN 55331 474-5222 Pro Shop 474-9571 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128. www.cLshorewood.mn.us . cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us Celebrating 50 Years. 1956 - 2006 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council Craig W. Dawson, City Administratorl\~ September 21, 2006 V L-> Activity Indicators in Budget The City Council discussed activity indicators as it acted to accept the 2007 proposed budget and tax levy on September 11, 2006. Council requested that this matter be placed on the agenda for a work session on September 25. Staff Recommendation: Over the brief time since the last Council meeting, department directors, who are responsible for providing the activity indicator data for the budget, have not been able to assemble fully the information that Council found lacking. Staff believes that a full discussion about activity indicators would be beneficial to everyone, and would suggest that the matter be placed on the budget work session scheduled for October 23. History: In 1997, the Legislature enacted a Local Performance Aid program. It was funded by withholding $1/capita from a local government's homestead credit aid. The local government was refunded this amount by showing that it had instituted some way of indicating performance in its budget. The state program was very general in what could be done to qualify in terms of performance indicators. By 2000, the Legislature abandoned the program. Cities having received local performance aid were grandfathered at $1/capita to the Local Government Aid (LGA) program. This grandfather went away for Shorewood when LGA was reformed in 2003. Shorewood began including activity indicators in 1992 and these subsequently complied with the Local Performance Aid program. Shorewood was also going through a period of growth in the late 1980s and early 1990s where there were dramatic changes annually in the volume of business the City was transacting on all levels. The indicators selected at the time were to give an idea of the level of activity performed, or the amount of things that needed to be addressed, within a program (dept/division) budget. Shorewood is now virtually fully developed, so there is little change in the indicators from year to year. The Right Indicators of Activity?: The key questions with performance indicators are whether they are reporting the right things, and how useful are they. It is inefficient to collect data that have little bearing or are of little use in making decisions about allocating resources. There are many areas of the City's operations where activity levels are not cost drivers; rather, the City has a responsibility to provide the service (e.g., animal control). The program is provided at whatever is the unit cost; if fewer staff resources are used in a particular year, they are applied in another area, and the overall cost of doing the City's many businesses remains the same. 4''' t",J PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER #- Budget Activity Indicators September 25,2006, City Council Work Session Page 2 It is good to have information about what is being accomplished. It is a common practice, if this is addressed in the annual budget, to do so in narrative form (such as a budget transmittal memorandum), or in a separate statistical section. In providing this information, it is also better to have accurate data or estimates; in their absence, it is better to report nothing instead of something that may be misleading. Performance Measurement: This topic is one that has been coming into vogue in the city management and finance professions. It is designed to identify how well things are done (and to provide a basis for benchmarking with other organizations). As it relies on data-gathering without an infinite amount of staff resources to do it, selecting meaningful things to measure is important. An even higher level of performance measurement is effectiveness measurement. Whether an increase or decrease in funding has any effect on say, reported crimes or the percentage of streets remaining in poor condition, would be evaluated. By contrast, activity indicators would generally show the amounts of things (e.g., miles of roadway; number of financial transactions) that the City is responsible to address. Staff Suggestion: It would be a good project for Council and staff to re-examine the activity indicators as they relate to the budget document and to other purposes. This is likely longer-term than for the 2007 budget. In terms of the 2007 budget, it would be productive for the City Council to forward specific ideas, suggestions, or concerns to me in writing or by email, so that they may be assembled for and addressed at the October 23 work session.