062507 CC WS AgP
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
JUNE 25, 2007
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5:45 P.M.
AGENDA
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
A. Roll Call
Mayor Lizee _
Woodruff
Turgeon _
Callies
Wellens
B. Review Agenda
2. WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT (Att. - City Administrator's memorandum)
3. LIQUOR OPERATIONS (Att. - Staff memorandum)
4. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (Att. - Staff memorandum)
5. BUDGET CALENDAR - 2008 OPERATING BUDGET KICK-OFF (Att. - Staff
memorandum)
6. SOUTHSHORE CENTER STATUS REPORT (Att. - City Administrator's memorandum)
7. OTHER
8. ADJOURN
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
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Council )I t\
Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator (;LJ-J
June 21, 2007
Wildlife Management (Work Session Item)
In the fall of 2006, after having developed a deer management plan and allowing public comment on
it, the City received a special removal permit from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
for removal of up to 20 deer from the Minnetonka Country Club property (to be done at the Country
Club's expense). The Council also amended several sections of the Code to allow the discharge of
weapons and dispatching of animals for wildlife management purposes by individuals approved by
the SLMPD. The Council indicated then that in 2008 it would consider deer management across
Shorewood. In its goals and priorities set earlier this year, Council wanted wildlife management
generally (not just deer) to be addressed.
While deer were being removed from the Minnetonka Country Club property, staff received no
communications from residents regarding the wisdom or morality of dispatching deer, or complaints
about the discharge of guns.
City Code Modifications in 2006: Amendments were made to the sections of the Code relating to
weapons discharges and to trapping and hunting. After the amendments made in 2006, the City does
not permit:
(1) the discharge of any gun, pistol, or firearm, except by law enforcement officers, or for
persons authorized by the SLMPD for purposes of wildlife management; or
(2) trapping or hunting (defined to include bow-and-arrow) within the City, unless performed
by, or with the authorization of the City under a permit issued by the State for the purpose of
managing wildlife populations.
In the removal of deer from the Minnetonka Country Club, the SLMPD Police Chief recommended
that animals be dispatched with a firearm for maximum public safety, and the Council agreed.
Hence, removal by bow-and-arrow under the trapping/hunting section of the code was not authorized
by the City Council.
f".
t ~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
....
Wildlife Management
June 25,2007, City Council Work Session
Page 2
Deer Census: The DNR requires a deer census for management of a population in a general area
(e.g., within the whole of a city's corporate limits); it is not necessary for a specific area (e.g.,
Minnetonka Country Club). In late February 2007, Three Rivers Park District conducted a deer
census within Shorewood. It rented a helicopter for a little over two hours; with the exception of the
helicopter rental, the Park District provided this service at no charge. The survey, which was a
snapshot of conditions on February 27, counted 121 deer, with about two-thirds of that number
around Christmas Lake. (A copy of the survey map is attached.)
Recommended Deer Harvest: The DNR does not limit the percentage of deer that may be removed in
a management plan. It has approved plans which remove all deer from a specified area. One
common standard is to reduce deer to a density of 20 per square mile of habitat (wetlands, woods,
open fields). The City has 5.5 square miles ofland, 20 percent of which staff estimates would be
considered habitat. Under this standard, the City may wish to consider the removal of up to 100 deer.
DNR staff recommends that a range, rather than a specific number of deer to be removed be stated in
the management plan.
The City needs to develop a deer management plan and provide for public comment or participation
in the plan approved by the City Council. The DNR special removal permit is an annual one, and the
City would need to report on the effectiveness of the program annually while applying for a new
permit, and any revisions to the management plan accordingly. A special permit allows removal of
deer anytime the City may choose between September and the end of April. The DNR will not
permit removal of deer between May 1 and early September (the "fawning season") under any
circumstances; however, this is the time of year when residents generally contact the City and want
deer removed.
Cost: Firms that use the trap-and-dispatch (i.e., shoot) method of charge around $350 per animal
removed. Removal of30 deer would cost in the range of$10,500. There is a bow hunters'
association that will remove deer at no or a nominal cost. There is generally greater concern about
the safety and effectiveness of bow- and-arrow. There may be a greater chance that a deer will be
wounded rather than killed, and that a wounded animal may cause damage to property or be involved
in a vehicle crash. The SLMPD Chief of Police has recommended the trap-and-dispatch as most
reliable for public safety.
Beavers: The trapping season for beaver is between late October and mid-May. State statute allows
a property owner to remove a beaver at any time (whether it was trapping season or not) on his/her
own property. Any removal done by the City or by a contractor (hired by the City or a property
owner) outside of the trapping season needs a DNR permit from the local conservation officer.
The City's trapping/hunting ordinance would not allow property owners (or their contractors) to
remove beavers without prior City authorization for managing the beaver population. If they wished
to use a firearm, they would also need authorization by the SLMPD.
Geese: Geese are protected on both the state and federal levels. The DNR currently has only one
contractor approved to manage goose populations. It no longer has any place that wants to take geese
relocated from Minnesota, so management is done by destroying the geese and giving their meat to
food-shelf organizations. State permits, which are subject to federal permits, are granted only to
governmental agencies.
Wildlife Management
June 25, 2007, City Council Work Session
Page 3
Wild Turkeys: A State permit is required for removal of wild turkeys, and only governmental
agencies may receive such a permit. Like geese, wild turkeys are destroyed (not relocated), and their
meat must be given to food-shelf organizations. A few years ago, the City did obtain a special
removal permit, but our public works staff did not need to avail themselves of permission to exercise
it. SLMPD is very reluctant to dispatch its officers to dispatch the turkeys.
Coyotes: We have occasionally heard of coyotes being present in the western parts of Shorewood.
Coyotes have no state or federal protection. No license or permit is required to remove coyotes, and
they may be taken at any time.
r:CL~--Irtr J.-) ( J-O 0)
~r 5~,,/ - )~v,J
'1 ','
~tJ p6LW?0V\-
'01,
~!!
~JaJ::r
o
~
~
'"
.-----,
(0)
1.....
.'
\
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128. www,cLshorewood.mn.us . cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Council
Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator
Bonnie Burton, Director of Finance
Don Swandby, Liquor Operations Manager
June 21, 2007
Continuation of Liquor Operations Discussion (Work Session Item)
TO:
FROM:
At the May 14 work session, the City Council gave direction to renegotiate the lease for the
Waterford liquor store space. The City's lease expired on March 31, 2007, and is currently on a
month-to-month basis (with 30 day's notice of termination) with rent at 125 percent of what was in
effect in March 2007. One of options to pursue was an extension to coincide with the termination
date of the Shorewood Village liquor store, which is October 31,2007. The owner of the Waterford
center has put forth two proposals for the City to consider.
For comparison purposes, with the gross rent in effect March 2007, the City's annualized cost was
$67,263. (And for further comparison, the gross rent in effect in 1998 was $88,803.)
In the first proposal, the space could be occupied through October 31, 2008. The current space would
remain the same, and the current provision to downsize from 4,500 square feet to 2,850 square feet
would be removed. In Proposal # 1, the gross rent would be increased by 10 percent retroactive to
April 1, 2007, and would require a four-month notice for termination. At this rate, the annualized
cost would be $73,990. The City would pay $10,089 more rent ($4,484 in 2007 and $5,605 in 2008)
through then end of lease than under the former rental rate. These figures were included in the
revised financial projections for 2007 and 2008 presented to Council at the May 14 work session.
In the second proposal, the lease would run from April 1, 2007, through March 31, 2012. The space
would be downsized to 2,850 square feet (as has been plmmed for several years), with a construction
cost to the City of $1.00/sq. ft. included in the rent. Gross rent would start at $64,890 for the first
year and would increase three percent annually. The fifth-year gross rent would be $73,045.
One item that adds value for the purchaser of a business is having a lease of some duration in place.
By assuming the lease, the new business owner will have some security in terms of planning for
expenses and being able to stay in operation.
f".
t ~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
....
IF.,......, c..,..
June 20, 2007
Don Swandby
Shorewood Liquor
19905 Highway 7, Suite F
Shorewood, MN 55331
Re: Lease proposal options per 6-12-07 meeting between Swami & Don
Proposal #1:
1. Lease period April 1, 2007 thru October 31, 2008.
2. Notify the Landlord 4 months prior to lease expiration date of the intent to stay or
vacate.
3. Space to remain at 4500 s.t: No construction cost.
4. Rent shall be 10% over 2006 rent.. $5605.30 per month x 1.10 = $6165.83 per
month. rIms is gross rent price.
5. 25% rent increase from 2006 cost will occur again if lease expires with no notice
or lease extension.
Proposal #2:
1. Lease to date back to April 1 , 2007 and extend 5 years to March 31, 2012.
2. Notice period same as original lease.
3. Space to be reduced to 2850 s.f.
4. Gross Rent to be $22.77 per 2850 s.f. fOf 1st year. This includes $1 pet square foot
per year to covet a portion of the construction cost in reducing the space. Each year to
follow will increase by 3%. ($23.45,24.16,24.88,25.63).
5. Construction to be done;
a. Demising wall between the 2 spaces.
b. Wall:from back entry into new vacant space with locked door.
c. Lockable door from back entry into back room of new liquor store space.
d. One existing front glass door will be exchanged with one existing window
to create new liquor store entry' and reduce VaCfu'"lt space to one door.
e. Front stoop to be added at new liquor store entry as required.
5661 International Pkwy Minneapolis, MN 55428763-533-9403 (Fax) 763-533-9586
IF.,......, a..,....I&I&P
f. (2) 8'-0" walls to fonn office between back room and main space with an
opening from the back room into this new office.
g. Electrical outlets in new wall up to code.
h. 6'-0" x 6'-0" linoleum by front entry.
i. Any other construction items requested by Tenant will be paid for up front
by Tenant.
j. Move handicapped spaces in front of store. This must follow city codes
and be located at ramped curb area. Ifno other ramped curb is available,
city will need to alter curb if they wish to move the spaces.
6. Utilities will be paid 9()D/o by liquor store when adjoining space is vacant. Any
power in the vacant space will be temporarily disconnected and da...mpers for heating and
cooling will be closed to keep majority ofutiHties running in Liquor store only. The
remaining 10 % will he paid by the owner. Utilities will be split by square footage
percentage when adjoining space receives a new tenant. Gas and electric metering will
not be split. Utility bills will be forwarded to Waterford Center LLP .office (after
separation is complete) and billed to each tenant for their individual portion from that
time on. Invoices will be sent out monthly and due with the following months rent
We wish to finalize this trdDSaCtion soon.
Please can if you have any further questions.
Thank you.
Qp
Partner
Waterford Center LLP
5661lntemational PhV)' Minnea}"olis, MN 55428 763-533-9403 (Fax) 763-533-9586
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
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator
Larry Brown, Director of Public Work
""
Bonnie Burton, Director of Finance
James Landini, City Engineer ~
DATE: June 21, 2007
SUBJECT: Continuing Discussion on Draft 2007-2011 CIP (Work Session Item)
The City Council indicated agreement with many sections of the proposed 2007-2011 CIP during its
first review in the May 29 work session. The following revisions have been made per Council
direction:
. The Land & Open Space Acquisition Fund is discontinued. The balance in the fund has been
transferred to the balance in the Stormwater Management Fund in the CIP.
. The current Technology/Office Equipment Fund is reduced to $100,000. The remaining
balance is placed in the Public Facilities Fund.
. In the Public Facilities Fund, $1 million is shown in 2008 and in 2009 for City Hall
rehabilitation, with construction anticipated in 2009 (and all financing would likely occur in
that year). Additionally, the $53,000 shown for 2007 and $140,000 for 2008 have been
removed from the schedule, as rehabilitation or new construction would remove the need to
spend these amounts.
Additionally, staff has made the following revisions:
. The Equipment Fund has been modified in 2007-2009 in order to replace the water truck in
2007, rather than in 2009. (See City Council regular agenda item 10 B.) The scheduled
expenditures during these three years remain similar to the draft plan of May 29.
. The Public Facilities Fund includes $50,000 for two civil defense sirens in 2007. The need to
replace the sirens has been known for some time, and has been shown in prior CIPs. The
entire five-siren system among the four SLMPD cities needs to be replaced within a year.
Pricing will go up if acquisition is delayed to 2008. The projected balance in the Public
Facilities Fund will be $99,000 at 2007 year-end if the sirens are acquired this year.
f".
t ~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
....
2007-2011 CIP Discussion, Continued
June 25, 2007, City Council Work Session
Page 2
Finally, two major funds - Local Street Reconstruction and Stormwater Management - have blank
pages at this time. The Council asked for a schedule of the critical roadway improvement and
stormwater improvements given, say, a six-year timeframe to implement them, in order to get an idea
of the cost implications to accomplish them.
Staffhas prepared schedules for replacement oflocal roads rated "3" or worse by 2013. A schedule
for storm water improvements has also been prepared, showing drainage improvements associated
with the local road improvements through 2013, and also showing priority improvements that are not
associated with road projects.
Local Street Reconstruction Fund: The schedule shows constant annual outlays for seal coating and
overlays; by not acknowledging inflation, these programs would be reduced over time. Projected
fund balances begin to show deficits in 2009.
. The projected deficit through 2010 is $558,000. Deficits thereafter through 2014 total $3.1
million.
o Through 2010, an additional $200,000/year capital transfer into the Fund would be
needed; or it could be covered with $100,000 in 2008, $200,000 in 2009, and $300,000
in2010.
o For 2011-2014, the City could issue $3.5 million in roadway bonds in 2011. The
annual cost to retire 15-year bonds would be in the $350,000 range.
o As a point of reference, $200,000 is approximately 4 percent of the City's 2007 tax
levy.
Stormwater Management Fund: The schedule assumes the existing stormwater management rates
($15/quarter for residential property) would remain in effect.
. The projected deficit to accomplish the projects through 2013 is $928,000. This figure
averages approximately $155,000 per year. Deficits begin to appear at 2008 year-end, and
changes in rates to need to be considered in the very near future.
o The stormwater rate would need to be increased approximately $12 to $14/quarter
($48-$56/year) to cover the deficits projected through 2013.
The City Council should indicate the extent it wishes to accomplish all of the projects in these funds
by 2013, or at some longer period of time.
"0
o
o
3:
~
o
.c
(f)
4-
o
~
o
o
(")
o
N
I
I'-
o
o
N
e..
U
'<tICO ~I I 0 01 I I II 0 col I
..- I'- 0 01 0 1'-1
00 0 0' q 0'
N . cD t.O c<5
I'- i ..-
0> I co 0> ~ co ..-
l- I'- l:liH ..- co
ro c<5 E/7 1 E/7 c<5 I
0) b(i E/7 I i
>- I I I
(") '<t 0 I N co I !
..- 0 0 00 r-.. I'-
0 LO 0 00 LO q
N cD t.O cDt.O t.O I'-
0::> '<t' CO ,0> 0> LO 0>
CoI ~ (") E/7 E/7 ~ co. I'- i
0) I~ E/7 I ..- ..- c<5
I E/7 E/7 E/7 I
~~ I
NN 0 0 0 N N '<t , I
..-(") 0' 0 0 I'- I
o ..- 0 0 0 (") (,,)LO
,N cD t.O I IcD t.O I ;gl t.OcD
0 '<t ICO 0>1 NO::>
I- !~~~ E/7 E/7i o. N'<t
ro ' . .
..- ..-N I
0) 'E/7 toft fF( I I .
~ ,
~~~ . I gig !
..-0>0 N ..- 8~'
..-coo I'- 0>
00::>0 g;III~ll~ N. ..-
N . . cD
NLO I 0::>
o::>'<t co 0
I- 0 (") E/7E/7 ..-LO 0::> u::.
ro !~ E/7 I E/7 E/7 E/7 ..-
0) E/7 E/7 I
>- I , I 1
0 0 0 00 I LO'<t mlo> ,
..- ..- 0 00 '<t..- LOCO
0 LO 0 0_ qi 1'-. u::. (") 0::> I
N cO t.O COLO 01'- 10) N
LO '<t CO 0> :LO ~I ~~ 0::>
I- LO (") E/7E/7 (")(") q
ro E/7 E/7 11~ln~~: ..- ,
I 1 :
0) E/7 I I
>- , I
0> 0 0 0 , II
0 0,0 00 ..- ..-
0 LOO , qo. q LO. I
N cD t.O 1~'~ ~ I '~ 0::>
I- LO '<t coO> 0::> LO
..- (") E/7 E/7 LO LO H-
ro E/7 E/7 1 I ~ b(l
0) I ,-Ill :
1- ~ ,
~,g 0 . . IF 0 0 0 0 I
0 0,0 0 0 0
0 0'0 LO ,L() LO_ !
t.O ' IcDt.O~ . .
L() CO I
'<t CO 0>0> L() LO, , 11-
(") E/7 E/7 '<to +tm CO ..- :
E/7 : . E/7
0) ..- ..- ..- I I
>- E/7 E/7 E/7
1'-0 0 0 0 0 0 I
00 0 18_~ I 0 0 I 1
00 0 0 0 ,
N . t.O ~
0 COLO I ..-
I'- '<t coO> 1 1 I co LO
I- 0> (") E/7 E/7 ~i~
ro E/7 E/7 :
0), I
>-, : E/7
10) 10) I -
0::> 0> 0 0 ..- , ..- N (") !
'u 0 0 ..- ..- ~i...- ..- ..-
C :n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (/)
.!ll .!ll N N N N N N N N 0)
ro 1 ~ u i
'co I C I
co Iii .2 ro , !
~ 1
0> 0) '6 co
C E . C co
'E (lJ
0 Q. "0
ro u x C
U5 ..s 1 w W
o..-LO '<tN ..-N il
, o..-'<t ..- I'- 0>,1'- i
I- :;I~ci COLO co'(")
o ~i ,...: -r-- t.O~
(/) i :
~w O>O::>LO LOI'- (")CO
'<tLO(,,) (")..- LOO '<t'
(lJ~ . E/7 'E/7 E/7iE/7 E/7"': .1
..- I ..- '
I ' c= E/7 E/7 E/7 I
.Q :0
co "Ci) , I i i
'E ~ l
-H- I -u.
1
I'- 0'0 (") 0> I'- 01(") '<t (") (") 1 Ln .C
,0 0 (") N 0::> N LO ..- CO I'- I ro
0 0 0 ~ LO. 0> 0> ..- 1'-. 0> N .
I 0 t) cD t.O N cO c<5 t.O :2 ,
N (") ..- ..- 0
W CO 0> N (") 0 0 '<t '<t (") ..- I~
E/7 E/7 '<to LO (") (") ..- '<t 0::> ..-
CO E/7 E/7 E/7 E/7 E/7 E/7 ':J
(f) ..- ..- , U I
E/7 E/7 .
II <( :J
1 I-
(9 1 t)
~
'r I E I I 4-
~ C , ..s
OlC ' ro ro ;>,
0> e.l!1 ....J 1 .0
C (lJ "0 "0
~ 0..(9 "0 U (lJ 0)
I 0 ;>,' :J ~ig: 0 E.c
- ~ .!ll 0 0) :J .!Q
C i u I- _ (/)
0) ro (lJ .- C C (/) .0
ro > C ro ,9,l 'C t5 (/) -g rJ)
0. I "e (lJ .Q ro
(f) o~ ....J ~ Cl 1::1"0 0 "0 0.. ro t)
l- e.. 0> (lJ . ro ~ 0::: C (lJ
ro Qj co co (lJ C o 11 gL 0 I E ,Q I-
0) :J :J1(lJ ~ -g 'iji E :: .l!1 ~ :J ro (lJ
;>, ~ C C'E rJ) 'E
x U5 C ~I<( ro 0) Qi ro.lB ~Iu rJ) c;::
'iji I <( :r: :2IZ 0::: (f) > W <( C 0 1
I
I'-
o
o
~
..-
N
CD
C
o
U
:J
l-
t)
C
o
u
0)
0:::
Qj
~
U5
co
u
o
....J
o
C"l
o
N
~
o
o
N
a..
(3
"0
o
o
3:
0)
(;
..c:
(/)
-
o
~
U
c
0)
E
0)
Ol
ell
c:
ell
:2:
:v
ro
3:
E
(;
Ci5
i~
o
N
00
C"l0
-.:to
NO
coo
~~
Y(
tn!LOlo
~ NiD
'0 ~iO
N .,fi 0:
00'
iN:T"""
-'<17
Z?:
'-.:tOiO
oi~'8
N'c<liO
l'--iO
O!.,-
~!EI7i
Y(
i~ ~!g
o T""":O!
N'a50
NO
Q)iT"""'
Yfif;;f7
::::~:gi
Oi-.:tO
,N ~!g
Ni-.r-'
10'{ f;f7;
0,0
0:0
iN'O
LOa
N:O
NiT"""
b(!Ei7
ro
0) ,
>-
O)NO
o co,O
~~i~,
-.:to
~:~
, l
ro
0)
>-
CX)!CO:O
o 1'--,0
OCOO
N - -
0)0
0),0
NiT"""
EI7 ! EI7 ~
.1'-- 0 0
000
~~i~1
1'--0
N ...-
,<17: <17
0)
U
c:
ell
ro
eo
~O)
:e g
.l9 u
(/)E
0,0
(,O!e
O)!O
.., -j
o!o,
-.:to
:l"-iT"""
, <17'<17
, .
I'--
o
o
~
N
ii3
co'o
~:~I
; ..0 i 0;)'
C"l!-.:t
<17 <17
(J) 0)
0) (J)
N'-.:t
LOa
i:;=!~!
W'Y(i
o
-.:t
I!")
o
-.:t
I!")
<17
co co'
CO-.:t
1'--.0)
m'o
N!N
<17' <17
N
N
iC"l
a5
I'--
<17
N ,0),0) -.:t'-.:t 0) ,0 0 'I!") ! 0)'
...- '8i8:0,0 '0 ...- ...- ...- '0
0 0,0 0 0 oi
N N!N!N,N NN NiN N
::::~ ~i~ ::: :::I~i~
'0,0000000
'NiNiN,NN,N,N N
(J) 0)
Q) U
~ c:
.3:cu
:aim
c,eo
1'i3:
x 0)
wz
; , !
; n__n___: _: ___i : _ _j__ i
N~ 0 1{)~6dCO 't-:-dC"lN! 0 iroTC") i co' co' (J) !~Lo i I!") lCO; 0: L[); co:
~ N-.:t,C"liN,CO 0'0) C"l!1'--C"l!0) COi-.:t 0) CO,I'--,COiN ON,
o ~!~!~!-.:t_!~~,N.!"tI'--.,CO.N_-.:t.I'--.i~,CO_O_O.CO.iCO_,C"l_,I!").i
(J)co,O'-.:tI'--'-.:t,CO!I'--COl-.:t,I!").N O)'OiO)!...-C"lI!")CO!COC"l
~,~i~~~~i~<I7~'a,~i~i~~,~iNI~,~iai~,<17
~' ,<17,<17, '<17'<17, ' , '<17, , i
:c
'00
ell
~i i ! : i
I'-- 'NiCl:60;o;o!6i6:66'6'~610!OO 00 0 0 0
0~~g8,8'g'888!88,88'8,8;8,88,8 8 ~
~i~,a5,.,fLOia5N.,fa5c<l:LOc<l!o'~m.,f!o,o,~!Nc<lic<l
roi~!~:~i~i~!~:EI7:~:~:~i~!~i~:~:~i~!~!~~if;;f7,
(/)<17<17' " <17<17" '<17' " "
<(
<.9
tl
'0)
c
,Q
ro
<;:::
: c:
0)
U
c: ell
&i1i:
Q) i"E
010
:g~
COil:::;
, ~: (/)
~!~
.r:::. ::Jio
U O'N
'w,eo N
.8
:J
<( ell
.c. .~
g .::=
(/)0::
Q)O
~N
co i "l""'""
...JlCO
Q)
, i::
, :J:
<Y
0)"0
:j:j0::
i~ 0 ~i"E co
i=.c l-!co () co
'" U :J,~ <(..c:
I;:; W :2:!<.9 0 ()
...-00 I!") I!") 0
COC"lCONC"lCO
('l")COT""*Q')CV')T"""
NI!")COI!")NCO
CAPIT AL
I PROVEM T
PROGRAM
Calendar Years 2007 - 2011
June 2007
II. INTRODUCTION
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 . (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128' www.cLshorewood.mn,us . cityhall@ci,shorewood,mn,us
Celebrating 50 Years. 1956 - 2006
June 20, 2007
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers,
Introduction
We present to you the 2007 - 2011 Capital Improvement Program for the City of Shorewood, MN. The
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a coordinated schedule of municipal capital projects,
improvements, and purchases for the years 2007 through 2011. It consists of project proposals that
include the project title, scheduled year, and the funding sources for each project. It identifies sources of
revenue to pay for the planned capital project improvements and purchases.
The Basics
At its essence, a CIP is a planning tool for some specified period of time. The CIP lists significant (hence
the term "capital") improvements in infrastructure and equipment that the City should plan for. It
becomes a financial planning tool that identifies funding sources and funding availability, and helps
decision-makers to determine affordability. With the approval or amendment by the Council, the CIP
provides an implementation program for staff to work on.
The League of Minnesota Cities' Handbook for Minnesota Cities contains the following discussion of
Capital Improvement Budgeting.
"Capital budgeting is a list of needed capital improvements, their order of priority, and the means
of financing them. Besides being one of the major tools of planning, a capital budget can provide
some or all ofthe following advantages:
. Keep the public informed of future needs and protect councilmembers from pressure
groups seeking projects rated low on the priority list
. Often reduce or stabilize the tax rate
. Establish an orderly capital improvement program, preventing the peaks and valleys in a
community's debt retirement program
. Frequently allow a community to move gradually to a pay-as-you-go program of capital
expenditure financing for a considerable portion of its improvements
. Capital improvements take place in a logical and orderly manner, rather than
haphazardly.
. Integrate the plans and projects of all city departments and agencies, eliminating
conflicting and overlapping projects
. By insuring prior consideration for all capital improvements, it helps guarantee ample
time for detailed and careful planning of the actual program.
"'"
It Ii) PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
"'$l7
2
CIP Transmittal Letter
June 2007 - Page 2
"The City puts improvement projects into a multiple-year capital improvement program on the
basis of the established priority. When the council reviews it in light of the community's
financial situation, it may find the city should defer some of the projects beyond the improvement
period and other projects indefinitely,
"Following this, the budget officer recommends projects for the coming budget year. The
recommendations, in effect, become the recommended program.
"Priorities in the capital budget program for the following years remain tentative, and the council
should review them annually. At that time, the council should consider the addition of new
projects and the deletion of others."
A CIP is not a document set in stone. It is a snapshot of needs, schedule of improvements, and schedule
of financing, typically five years into the future. It is intended that the CIP be reviewed and changed as
physical conditions, financial conditions, and changes in priorities occur.
The CIP and the Comp Plan
As the park improvement program implements the parks master plan, the City's CIP is an implementation
program of the City's Comprehensive Plan. In fact, Minnesota law provides that a City's planning
commission is to review the CIP prior to its adoption by the city council, although in practice this is
seldom done unless a particular project within the CIP appears to be inconsistent with the Comprehensi ve
Plan.
What to Include in the CIP?
Cities differ on the extent of projects they list in a CIP. Some almost become wish-lists, containing a lot
of ill-defined projects in the outer years of the program. Some have a more limited scope, and include
only projects on which commitments have been made, or exclude projects that other units of government
may have planned within the city's boundaries.
A CIP should be developed to combine realistic needs with realistic expectations about expenditures.
They should reflect the projects of other units of government (e.g., MnDOT, Hennepin County, watershed
districts), when known, so that opportunities to coordinate City projects can be identified.
The CIP can contain, as appendices, other schedules or lists of projects beyond the five-year time horizon,
For example, an equipment replacement program often extends out 20 years, so that the acquisition of
equipment can be timed to assure that the annual balance in the equipment replacement fund doesn't go in
the red. Or, it may show that short-term debt, such as equipment certificates, may need to be issued for
critical pieces of equipment.
Roadway Projects
State law enacted in 2002 created a new way for cities to finance road projects, For non-special
assessment financing requiring more than five years to pay, a referendum is required. With the law
change, cities may issue "roadway bonds" without referendum, provided that the City has identified the
projects in its CIP and is subject to reverse referendum (i,e" a sufficient number of residents can request a
referendum if they file a petition within a 30-day period of the council's action).
3
eIP Transmittal Letter
June 2007 - Page 3
There may be an incentive to list many projects, or have a general plan for roadways with an annual
outlay for them, within the CIP. The law is not clear that a road project needs to be constructed in the
year of financing; rather, the project(s) or outlays simply need to be listed in the CIP, If projects or
outlays are not listed, the CIP could be amended as necessary to qualify them roadway bonds.
Some additional roadway-related projects that were added to the CIP for 2007 include:
Approaches in Developing the CIP
Council has developed a philosophy about what is to be included when a CIP is presented. The following
points, subject to Council modification, are part of that understanding.
. Projects in Shorewood's CIP are listed with particular care in terms of the likelihood that
they will be implemented in the first or second year of the program.
. Projects listed in years three through five of the program identify projects and
opportunities that merit further evaluation.
. There are programs for on-going outlays for which individual projects are not well-
defined at this time. For instance, the City has a pavement management program to
assess the condition of local streets, and it is updated every year. It is appropriate to
budget $95,000 for bituminous overlays each year without listing specific streets after the
first year.
. Placing a project or outlay in the CIP does not commit the City Council to accomplish it.
The Council's normal processes of authorizing studies to be prepared and gaining public
comment need to be followed. A CIP listing does not in any way imply a done deal or a
foregone conclusion, A CIP helps to keep needs in front of the Council and helps it set
priorities.
Respectfully submitted,
Craig Dawson
City Administrator
4
COMPREHENSIVE
PLANNING PROCESS
Planning Inventory
,
~ Planning Tactics
Physical - Economic - Social
I Land I Transportation -, Community I Population I Property T Market I
Use Facilities Values Potentials
,Ir
Policy Plan
Planning &
Inventory Analysis Goals and Development
Objectives Policies
~
r
Plans, Projects,. Programs
Implementation
"
,
I
5
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FISCAL POLICY
GENERAL POLICY
Shorewood's Capital Improvements Program reflects an assessment of the community's needs
and its ability to pay for major improvements. It is founded on the policy that reinvestment
required for replacement, maintenance, or the increased efficiency of existing systems shall have
priOlity over investments for expansion of existing systems or the provision of new services.
FUNDING PRIORITIES
Capital spending proposals will generally be funded on the following priority basis:
1. Those projects necessary for contributing to the public health and welfare.
2. Those projects which will help to maintain an existing system.
3. Those projects that will make an existing system more efficient.
4. Those projects representing the expansion of an existing system for new service or
completely new public facility or service.
FUNDING PRINCIPLES
As a result, the following principles shall govern the implementation of the recommended
Capital Improvements Program:
1. The City will make all capital improvements in accordance with the adopted Capital
Improvements Program.
2. The City will develop a multi-year plan for Capital Improvements and update it annually.
3. The City will coordinate development of the Capital Improvements Program with
development of the annual operating budget. Future optional costs associated with new
capital improvements will be projected and included in operation budget forecasts.
6
II. TABLES
7
City of Shorewood, Minnesota
Capital Improvement Program
2007 thru 2011
PROJECTS BY DEPARTMENT
Department Project# Priority 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total
_ _~_.......__~W'_"______ ._
Equipment Replacement I
Water Truck-Ford 7000 E-07-45 n/a 141,397 141,397
F350 & Flatbed E-07-49 n/a 41,031 41,031
F350 4x4 Pickup w/plow E-07-55 n/a 35,349 35,349
Mower - Toro Groundsmaster 3250 E-OnO n/a 22,093 22,093
Diesel Fuel Trailer 500 Gallons E-07-71 n/a 7,827 7,827
Attach - Blower for Groundsmaster E-07-75 n/a 5,757 5,757
Attach - 1985 Cabs for Groundmaster E-07-82 n/a 5,050 5.050
SnDw Thrower - JDhn Deere 826 (1970) E-07-91 n/a 947 947
Snow Thrower - JDhn Deere 826 (1972) E-07-92 n/a 947 947
Attach - Flail side mower E-07-93 n/a 16,160 16,160
Attach - Flail rear mower E-07-94 n/a 8,080 8,080
Ford 555 BackhDe E-08-22 n/a 70,257 70,257
Dump Truck - Ford L800a (1988) E-08-33 n/a 147,205 147,205
Sweeper-Tennant240 E-08-46 n/a 16.059 16,059
Speed Awareness Display E-08-51 n/a 24,088 24,088
Skid Steer - BDbcat 753 E-08-76 n/a 23,887 23,887
Dump BDX RehabilitatiDn and Sander E-09-54 n/a 25,533 25.533
Dump Truck - Ford L8000 (1995) E-09-68 n/a 153,200 153,200
TractDr - Ford 3910 E-IO-35 n/a 39,094 39,094
Air CDmpressDr-lngersoll Rand 185 E-10-38 n/a 16,465 16,465
Trailer 12' TDpS E-10-41 n/a 3,458 3,458
Dump 1 tDn - 4 x 2 Ford F-350 E-10-52 n/a 54,131 54,131
Groundsmaster Mower- Toro 3280 E-10-57 n/a 26.314 26,314
Mower - TDro Walk 8ehind 44 E-10-73 n/a 3.308 3,308
Attach2 - 1985 Cabs fDr Groundmaster E-IO-82 n/a 6,015 6,015
Trailer 24' - Trail King E-II-21 n/a 23,111 23,111
Mower - TorD Groundmaster 3280 (84) E-II-74 n/a 27,892 27,892
Sand Pro 3000 E-II-77 n/a 13,548 13,548
Equipment Replacement Total 284,638 281,496 178,733 148,785 64,551 958,203
.-.... ....-...---
Municipal State Aid Streets ,
Vine Hill Road - Mill and Overlay MSA-03-05 2,500,000 2,500,000
Municipal State Aid Streets Total 2,500,000 2,500,000
Municipal Water System ~
S.E, Area Lineshaft Well- Pull & Inspect W-07-02 n/a 22,000 22.000
Amesbury Well Controls Replacement W-07-03 n/a 45,000 45.000
WODdhaven Well Bldg Demolition W-07-04 n/a 18,000 18,000
Water Meter Radio Read Project W-07-05 n/a 250,000 75,000 75.000 400,000
SE Area Water Tower - Power Wash W.07-25 nla 5,000 5.000
SE Area Water Tower - painting W-08-01 n/a 270.000 270,000
T1wndu\'. .I/1/1e:: /, ::007
8
Department
Amesbury Lineshalt Well- Pull & Inspect
80ulder Bridge Well #2 - Pull & Inspect
Municipal Water System Total
Parks
SilverwDDd Park Resurface Tennis/Basketball Court
Badger Park-FDDtball Field Lighting
Cathcart Park-Repave Existing Trail
Cathcart Park,Swing Set Replacement
Manor Park Tennis Court RecDnstructiDn
Manor Park-Pond Water Quality Improvements
Freeman Park-Restoration DUg-Duts
Cathcart Park-Resurface Magic Square
Silverwood Park-Bituminous Parking Lot
Freeman Park-Picnic Shelter Rehab
Freeman Park-Wetland Enhancement
Park ImprDvements
Parks Total
'Public Facilities
Civil Defense Sirens
Public Works Addition (Bay w/lilt)
City Hall Project
5795 CDuntry Club-Residence
Public Facilities Total
is~ilitary Sewer-- .
Lilt StatiDn 12 Rehab-5705 Christmas Lake pt.
SCAD A System 14 Lift Stations
Portable Lift Station CDntrol Panel
Lift Station 16 Rehab-4915 Shady Island Rd
Lift Station 15 Rehab-4360 Enchanted Dr.
Lift Station 17 Rehab-5295 Shady Island Rd
Annual Lift Station Inspect & Rehab
Infiltration and InflDw ReductiDn
Sanitary Sewer Total
Technology/Office Equip
Financial SDftware Package
NetwDrk (Computer) Replacement
Phone System (VOIP or Dther) - City Hall
City Hall Copier & Maintenance Contract
CDmputer Upgrades
Technology/Office Equip Total
GRAND TOTAL
Project# Priority
W-OB-02
W-09-01
~
P-07-01
P-07-02
P-07-03
P-07-04
P-07-05
P-07-06
P-09-01
P-09-02
P-10-01
P-IO-02
P-II-02
P-II-99
~
PF-07-05
PF-08-01
PF-08-02
PF-09-01
I
55-07-01
55-07-02
55-07-03
55-08-02
55-08-06
55-09-01
55-11-03
55-11-05
,
T-07-01
T-07-02
T-09-01
T-09-02
T-II-06
nla
nla
n/a
nla
nla
. nla
nla
nla
nla
nla
nla
nla
nla
nla
nla
nla
nla
nla
2007
340,000
2,000
95,000
2,200
2,500
55.000
15,000
171,700
50,000
50,000
nla
nla
nla
nla
nla
n/a
nla
nla
110.000
75,000
7,000
2008
23,000
368,000
5,000
5,000
400,000
1,000,000
1,400,000
104,000
28.000
25,000
50,000
207,000
10,000
70,250 10,000
10.000
1,183,588 2,271,496
2009
24,000
99,000
2,500
7,500
5,000
15,000
1,000,000
5,000
1,005,000
75,000
8,000
25,000
50,000
158,000
40,000
25,000
10,000
75,000
1,530,733
2010
18,000
3,000
5,000
26,000
45,000
25.000
50,000
120,000
10,000
10,000
304,785
2011
500,000
5,000
505,000
25.000
50,000
75,000
10,000
10,000
3,154,551
Total
23,000
24,000
807,000
2,000
95,000
2.200
2,500
55,000
15.000
2,500
7,500
18,000
3,000
500,000
20,000
722,700
50,000
400,000
2,000,000
5,000
2,455,000
110,000
75,000
7,000
104,000
103,000
53,000
125,000
250,000
827,000
43,000
17,250
40,000
25,000
50,000
175,250
8,445,153
25,000
50,000
267,000
n/a
nla
nla
nla
nla
43.000
17,250
9
Thlll".wlm'. ./III/i' 21,2007
City of Shorewood, Minnesbta
Capital Improvement Program
2007 thru 2011
PROJECTS BY YEAR
Project Name Department Project # Priority Project Cost
2007 I
Water Truck-Ford 7000 Equipment Replacement E-07-45 n/a 141,397
F350 & Flatbed Equipment Replacement E-07-49 n/a 41,031
F3504x4 Pickup W/pIDW Equipment Replacement E-07-55 n/a 35,349
Mower - TDro Groundsmaster 325D Equipment Replacement E-07-70 n/a 22,093
Diesel Fuel Trailer 500 Gallons Equipment Replacement E-07-71 n/a 7,827
Attach - BIDwer for Groundsmaster Equipment Replacement E-07-75 n/a 5,757
Attach - 1985 Cabs fDr Groundmaster Equipment Replacement E-07-82 n/a 5,050
Snow Thrower - John Deere 826 (1970) Equipment Replacement E-07-91 n/a 947
SnDw Thrower - John Deere 826 (1972) Equipment Replacement E-07-92 n/a 947
Attach - Flail side mDwer Equipment Replacement E-07-93 n/a 16,160
Attach - Flail rear mower Equipment Replacement E-07-94 n/a 8,080
S,E, Area Lineshaft Well - Pull & Inspect Municipal Water System W-07-02 n/a 22,000
Amesbury Well Controls Replacement Municipal Water System W-07-03 n/a 45,000
WDodhaven Well Bldg DemolitiDn Municipal Water System W-07-04 n/a 18,000
Water Meter Radio Read Project Municipal Water System W-07-05 n/a 250,000
SE Area Water Tower - PDwer Wash Municipal Water System W-07-25 n/a 5,000
Silverwood Park Resurface Tennis/Basketball Court Parks P-07-01 n/a 2,000
8adger Park-Football Field Lighting Parks P-07-02 n/a 95,000
Cathcart Park-Repave Existing Trail Parks P-07-03 n/a 2,200
Cathcart Park-Swing Set Replacement Parks P-07-04 n/a 2,500
Manor Park Tennis Court Reconstruction Parks P-07-05 n/a 55,000
Manor Park-PDnd Water Quality Improvements Parks P-07-06 n/a 15,000
Civil Defense Sirens Public Facilities PF-07-05 n/a 50,000
Lift StatiDn 12 Rehab-5705 Christmas Lake PI. Sanitary Sewer 55-07-01 n/a 110,000
SCAD A System 14 Lift Stations Sanitary Sewer 55-07-02 n/a 75,000
PDrtable Lift Station ContrDI Panel Sanitary Sewer 55-07-03 n/a 7,000
Annual Lift StatiDn Inspect & Rehab Sanitary Sewer 55-11-03 n/a 25,000
Infiltration and Inflow Reduction Sanitary Sewer 55-11-05 n/a 50,000
Financial Software Package T echnDlogy/Office Equip T-07-0 I n/a 43,000
Network (Computer) Replacement TechnolDgy/Office Equip T-07-02 n/a 17,250
Computer Upgrades Technology/Office Equip 7-11-06 n/a 10,000
Total for 2007 1,183,588
_ __u..
2008 I
Ford 555 8ackhoe Equipment Replacement E-08-22 n/a 70,257
Dump Truck - Ford L8000 (1988) Equipment Replacement E-08-33 n/a 147,205
Sweeper-Tennant 240 Equipment Replacement E-08-46 n/a 16,059
Speed Awareness Display Equipment Replacement E-08-51 n/a 24,088
Skid Steer - Bobcat 753 Equipment Replacement E-08-76 n/a 23,887
Water Meter RadiD Read Project Municipal Water System W-07-05 n/a 75,000
SE Area Water TDwer - painting Municipal Water System W-08-01 n/a 270,000
Amesbury Lineshaft Well - Pull & Inspect Municipal Water System W-OB-02 n/a 23,000
Park Improvements Parks P-11-99 n/a 5,000
Public Works Addition (Bay w/lift) Public Facilities PF-OB-01 n/a 400,000
nll/ndnv, JUlie 2/,2007
10
Project Name Department Project # Priority Project Cost
City Hall Project Public Facilities PF-08-02 n/a 1,000,000
Lift Station 16 Rehab-4915 Shady Island Rd Sanitary Sewer $$-08-02 n/a 104,000
Lift StatiDn 15 Rehab-4360 Enchanted Dr, Sanitary Sewer $$-08-06 n/a 28,000
Annual Lift Station Inspect & Rehab Sanitary Sewer $$-11-03 n/a 25,000
Infiltration and InflDw Reduction Sanitary Sewer $$-11-05 n/a 50,000
Computer Upgrades Technology/Office Equip T-11-06 n/a 10,000
Total for 2008 2,271,496
2009 ,
Dump Box Rehabilitation and Sander Equipment Replacement E-D9-54 n/a 25,533
Dump Truck - FDrd L8000 (1995) Equipment Replacement E-09-68 n/a 153,200
Water Meter Radio Read Project Municipal Water System W-07-05 n/a 75,000
Boulder Bridge Well #2 - Pull & Inspect Municipal Water System W-09-01 n/a 24,000
Freeman Park-Restoration DUg-Duts Parks P-D9-01 n/a 2,500
Cathcart Park-Resurface Magic Square Parks P-09-02 n/a 7,500
Park Improvements Parks P-II-99 n/a 5,000
City Hall Project Public Facilities PF-08-02 n/a 1,000,000
5795 Country Club-Residence Public Facilities PF-09-01 n/a 5,000
Lift Station 15 Rehab-4360 Enchanted Dr. Sanitary Sewer $$-08-06 n/a 75,000
Lift Station 17 Rehab-5295 Shady Island Rd Sanitary Sewer $$-09-01 n/a 8.000
Annual Lift StatiDn Inspect & Rehab Sanitary Sewer $$-11-03 n/a 25,000
InfiltratiDn and Inflow Reduction Sanitary Sewer $$-11-05 n/a 50,000
Phone System (VOIP Dr other) - City Hall TechnDIDgy/Office Equip T-D9-0 1 n/a 40.000
City Hall Copier & Maintenance Contract T echnDIDgy/Office Equip T-09-02 n/a 25,000
Computer Upgrades T echnolDgy/Office Equip T-II-06 n/a 10,000
Total for 2009 1,530,733
2010 ,
Tractor - Ford 3910 Equipment Replacement E-1O-35 n/a 39,094
Air Compressor-Ingersoll Rand 185 Equipment Replacement E-10-38 n/a 16,465
Trailer 12' Tops Equipment Replacement E-10-41 n/a 3,458
Dump 1 ton - 4 x 2 Ford F-350 Equipment Replacement E-10-52 n/a 54.131
Groundsmaster MDwer- TorD 3280 Equipment Replacement E-10-57 n/a 26,314
Mower - Toro Walk Behind 44 Equipment Replacement E-1O-73 n/a 3,308
Attach2 - 1985 Cabs for Groundmaster Equipment Replacement E-10-82 n/a 6,015
SilverwDod Park-Bituminous Parking Lot Parks P-10-01 n/a 18,000
Freeman Park-Picnic Shelter Rehab Parks P-10-02 n/a 3,000
Park Improvements Parks P-11-99 n/a 5,000
Lift StatiDn 17 Rehab-5295 Shady Island Rd Sanitary Sewer $$-09-01 n/a 45,000
Annual Lift Station Inspect & Rehab Sanitary Sewer $$-11-03 n/a 25,000
Infiltration and InflDw ReductiDn Sanitary Sewer $$-11-05 n/a 50,000
Computer Upgrades TechnDlogy/Office Equip T-11-06 n/a 10,000
Total for 2010 304,785
2011 ,
Trailer 24' - Trail King Equipment Replacement E-II-21 n/a 23,111
Mower - TorD Groundmaster 3280 (84) Equipment Replacement E-II-74 n/a 27,892
Sand Pro 3000 Equipment Replacement E-II-77 n/a 13,548
Vine Hill Road - Mill and Overlay Municipal State Aid Streets M$A-03-05 2,500,000
Freeman Park-Wetland Enhancement Parks P-11-02 n/a 500,000
Park Improvements Parks P-II-99 n/a 5,000
Annual Lift Station Inspect & Rehab Sanitary Sewer $$-11-03 n/a 25,000
Infiltration and Inflow ReductiDn Sanitary Sewer $$-11-05 n/a 50,000
Computer Upgrades Technology/Office Equip T-II-D6 n/a 10,000
TllI/nda\'. JUlie 2/,2007
11
Project Name
Department
Total for 2011
Project #
Priority
Project Cost
3,154,551
8,445,153
GRAND TOTAL
nUII'lda.\'. JUlie 2/, 2()()7
12
City of Shorewood, Minnesota
Capital Improvement Program
2007 thru 2011
SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS
Source 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Equipment Replacement Fund I
Beginning Balance 394,587 284,949 178,453 174,720 200,935
Revenues and Other Fund Sources
Revenue
Transfers In 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000
Total 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000
Total Revenues and Other Fund Sources 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000
Total Funds Available 569,587 459,949 353,453 349,720 375,935
Expenditures and Uses
Capital Projects & Equipment
Equipment Replacement
Water Truck-Ford 7000 E-07-45 (141,397) 0 0 0 0
F350 & Flatbed E-07-49 (41,031) 0 0 0 0
F350 4x4 Pickup W/pIDW E-07-55 (35.349) 0 0 0 0
Mower - TDrD Groundsmaster 3250 E-07-70 (22,093) 0 0 0 0
Diesel Fuel Trailer 500 Gallons E-07-71 (7,827) 0 0 0 0
Attach - Blower fDr GrDundsmaster E-07-75 (5,757) 0 0 0 0
Attach - 1985 Cabs for Groundmaster E-07-82 (5,050) 0 0 0 0
SnDw Thrower - John Deere 826 (1970) E-07-91 (947) 0 0 0 0
Snow Thrower - John Deere 826 (1972) E-07-92 (947) 0 0 0 0
Attach - Flail side mower E-07 -93 (16,160) 0 0 0 0
Attach - Flail rear mower E-07-94 (8,080) 0 0 0 0
FDrd 555 Backhoe E-08-22 0 (70,257) 0 0 0
Dump Truck - Ford L8000 (1988) E-08-33 0 (147,205) 0 0 0
Sweeper-Tennant240 E-08-46 0 (16,059) 0 0 0
Speed Awareness Display E-08-51 0 (24,088) 0 0 0
Skid Steer - Bobcat 753 E-08-76 0 (23,887) 0 0 0
Dump Box Rehabilitation and Sander E-09-54 0 0 (25,533) 0 0
Dump Truck - Ford L8000 (1995) E-09-68 0 0 (153,200) 0 0
Tractor - FDrd 3910 E-10-35 0 0 0 (39,094) 0
Air Compressor-Ingersoll Rand 185 E-10-38 0 0 0 (16,465) 0
Trailer 12' Tops E-10-41 0 0 0 (3,458) 0
Dump 1 tDn - 4 x 2 FDrd F-350 E-10-52 0 0 0 (54,131) 0
Groundsmaster Mower- Toro 328D E-10-57 0 0 0 (26,314) 0
Fhllrsdllv. Jllllt' ] /. ]Oi)7
13
Mower. Toro Walk Behind 44 E-10-73 0 0 0 (3,308) 0
Attach2 - 1985 Cabs for Groundmaster E-10-82 0 0 0 (6,015) 0
Trailer 24' - Trail King E-11-21 0 0 0 0 (23,111)
MDwer - Taro Groundmaster 3280 (84) E-11-74 0 0 0 0 (27,892)
Sand Pro 3000 E-11-77 0 0 0 0 (13,548)
Total (284,638) (281,496) (178,733) (148,785) (64,551)
Total Expenditures and Uses (284,638) (281 ,496) (178,733) (148,785) (64,551)
Change in Fund Balance (109,638) (106,496) (3,733) 26,215 110,449
Ending Balance 284,949 178,453 174,720 200,935 311,384
Source 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
.General Fund ,
Beginning Balance 3,549,502 3,549,502 3,149,502 3,144,502 3,144,502
Revenues and Other Fund Sources
ND Funds 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0
Total Revenues and Other Fund Sources 0 0 0 0 0
Total Funds Available 3,549,502 3,549,502 3,149,502 3,144,502 3,144,502
Expenditures and Uses
Capital Projects & Equipment
Public Facilities
Public Works AdditiDn (Bay w/lift) PF-08-01 0 (400.000) 0 0 0
5795 Country Club-Residence PF-09-01 0 0 (5,000) 0 0
Total 0 (400,000) (5,000) 0 0
Total Expenditures and Uses 0 (400,000) (5,000) 0 0
Change in Fund Balance 0 (400,000) (5,000) 0 0
Ending Balance 3,549,502 3,149,502 3,144,502 3,144,502 3,144,502
Thursd{/\'. JUIlt' 21, 2007
14
Source 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
General Obligation Bonds ,
Beginning Balance 0 0 1,000,000 0 0
Revenues and Other Fund Sources
Revenue
EDA Bonds 0 2,000,000 0 0 0
Total 0 2,000,000 0 0 0
Total Revenues and Other Fund Sources 0 2,000,000 0 0 0
Total Funds Available 0 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 0
Expenditures and Uses
Capital Projects & Equipment
Public Facilities
City Hall Project PF-08-02 0 (1,000,000) (1,000,000) 0 0
Total 0 (1,000,000) (1,000,000) 0 0
Total Expenditures and Uses 0 (1,000.000) (1.000,000) 0 0
Change in Fund Balance 0 1,000,000 (1,000,000) 0 0
Ending Balance 0 1,000,000 0 0 0
TlllIrsdo\", Jlllle ]1. ](107
15
Source 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
-
MSA Funding I
Beginning Balance 56,505 56,505 56,505 56,505 56,505
Revenues and Other Fund Sources
ND Funds 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0
Total Revenues and Other Fund Sources 0 0 0 0 0
Total Funds Available 56,505 56,505 56,505 56,505 56,505
Expenditures and Uses
Capital Projects & Equipment
Municipal State Aid Streets
Vine Hill Road - Mill and Overlay MSA-03-05 0 0 0 0 (2,500,000)
Total 0 0 0 0 (2,500,000)
Total Expenditures and Uses 0 0 0 0 (2,500,000)
Change in Fund Balance 0 0 0 0 (2,500,000)
Ending Balance 56,505 56,505 56,505 56,505 (2,443,495)
7JllIrsdu\', .Il1l1e 7. f. 7.00;
16
Source 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Municipal Water Fund ,
Beginning Balance 3,675,286 3,335,286 2,967,286 2,868,286 2,868,286
Revenues and Other Fund Sources
No Funds 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0
Total Revenues and Other Fund Sources 0 0 0 0 0
Total Funds Available 3,675,286 3,335,286 2,967,286 2,868,286 2,868,286
Expenditures and Uses
Capital Projects & Equipment
Municipal Water System
S,E, Area Lineshaft Well- Pull & Inspect W-07-02 (22,000) 0 0 0 0
Amesbury Well CDntrols Replacement W-07-03 (45,000) 0 0 0 0
WODdhaven Well Bldg DemDlition W-07-04 (18,000) 0 0 0 0
Water Meter RadiD Read Project W-07-05 (250,000) (75,000) (75,000) 0 0
SE Area Water Tower - Power Wash W-07-25 (5,000) 0 0 0 0
SE Area Water Tower - painting W-OB-01 0 (270,000) 0 0 0
Amesbury Lineshaft Well- Pull & Inspect W-OB-02 0 (23.000) 0 0 0
BDulder Bridge Well #2 - Pull & Inspect W-09-01 0 0 (24,000) 0 0
Total (340,000) (368,000) (99,000) 0 0
Total Expenditures and Uses (340,000) (36B,000) (99,000) 0 0
Change in Fund Balance (340,000) (36B,000) (99,000) 0 0
Ending Balance 3,335,286 2,967,286 2,868,286 2,868,286 2,868,286
Thur.ldu\', JUlie 21. 2007
17
Source 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Park Fund ,
Beginning Balance 320,000 158,300 163,300 158,300 142,300
Revenues and Other Fund Sources
Revenue
Transfers In 10,000 10.000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Total 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Total Revenues and Other Fund Sources 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Total Funds Available 330,000 168,300 173,300 168,300 152,300
Expenditures and Uses
Capital Projects & Equipment
Parks
SilverwDod Park Resurface Tennis/Basketball Cour P-07-01 (2,000) 0 0 0 0
Badger Park-Football Field Lighting P-07-02 (95,000) 0 0 0 0
Cathcart Park-Repave Existing Trail P.07-03 (2,200) 0 0 0 0
Cathcart Park-Swing Set Replacement P-07 -04 (2,500) 0 0 0 0
ManDr Park Tennis Court ReconstructiDn P-07-05 (55,000) 0 0 0 0
Manor Park-Pond Water Quality Improvements P-07-06 (15,000) 0 0 0 0
Freeman Park.RestoratiDn Dug-outs P-09-01 0 0 (2,500) 0 0
Cathcart Park-Resurface Magic Square P-09-02 0 0 (7,500) 0 0
SilverwoDd Park-Bituminous Parking Lot P.10-01 0 0 0 (18,000) 0
Freeman Park-Picnic Shelter Rehab P.10-02 0 0 0 (3,000) 0
Park ImprDvements P-ll.99 0 (5,000) (5,000) (5,000) (5,000)
Total (171,700) (5,000) (15,000) (26,000) (5,000)
Total Expenditures and Uses (171,700) (5,000) (15,000) (26,000) (5,000)
Change in Fund Balance (161,700) 5.000 (5,000) (16,000) 5,000
Ending Balance 158,300 163,300 158,300 142,300 147,300
Tlll/nt/ul'. ./lIl1e ] J. ](10;
18
Source 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Public Facilities Fund ,
Beginning Balance 149,132 99,132 99,132 99,132 99,132
Revenues and Other Fund Sources
Revenue
No Funds 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0
Total Revenues and Other Fund Sources 0 0 0 0 0
Total Funds Available 149,132 99,132 99,132 99,132 99,132
Expenditures and Uses
Capital Projects & Equipment
Public Facilities
Civil Defense Sirens PF-07-05 (50,000) 0 0 0 0
Total (50,000) 0 0 0 0
Total Expenditures and Uses (50,000) 0 0 0 0
Change in Fund Balance (50,000) 0 0 0 0
Ending Balance 99,132 99,132 99,132 99,132 99,132
ThursdU\', .IUI/~ 21.200;
19
Source 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Sanitary Sewer Fund I
Beginning Balance 3,988,341 3,833,341 3,686,341 3,588,341 3,528,341
Revenues and Other Fund Sources
Revenue
General Fund Debt 8eIVice 60,000 60.000 60,000 60,000 0
8tormwater Fund Debt 8eIVice 52,000 0 0 0 0
Total 112,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 0
Total Revenues and Other Fund Sources 112,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 0
Total Funds Available 4,100,341 3,893,341 3,746,341 3,648,341 3,528,341
Expenditures and Uses
Capital Projects & Equipment
8anitarv 8ewer
Lift 8tatiDn 12 Rehab-5705 Christmas Lake Pt. 88-07-01 (110,000) 0 0 0 0
8CADA 8ystem 14 Lift 8tations 88-07-02 (75,000) 0 0 0 0
Portable Lift Station Control Panel 88-07-03 (7,000) 0 0 0 0
Lift 8tation 16 Rehab-4915 8hady Island Rd 88-08-02 0 (104,000) 0 0 0
Lift 8tation 15 Rehab-4360 Enchanted Dr. 88-08-06 0 (28,000) (75,000) 0 0
Lift 8tatiDn 17 Rehab-5295 8hady Island Rd 88-09-01 0 0 (8,000) (45,000) 0
Annual Lift 8tatiDn Inspect & Rehab 88-11-03 (25,000) (25,000) (25,000) (25,000) (25,000)
Infiltration and Inflow Reduction 88-11-05 (50,000) (50,000) (50,000) (50,000) (50,000)
Total (267,000) (207,000) (158,000) (120,000) (75,000)
Total Expenditures and Uses (267,000) (207,000) (158,000) (120,000) (75,000)
Change in Fund Balance (155,000) (147,000) (98,000) (60,000) (75,000)
Ending Balance 3,833,341 3,686,341 3,588,341 3,528,341 3,453,341
T!wrsdm' .1/1111' 21. 2007
20
Source 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Technology/Office Equipment Fun ~
Beginning Balance 100,000 79,750 69,750 (5,250) (15,250)
Revenues and Other Fund Sources
Revenue
Transfers In 50,000 0 0 0 0
Total 50,000 0 0 0 0
Total Revenues and Other Fund Sources 50,000 0 0 0 0
Total Funds Available 150,000 79,750 69,750 (5,250) (15,250)
Expenditures and Uses
Capital Projects & Equipment
TechnolDqv/Office Equip
Financial SDftware Package T-07-01 (43,000) 0 0 0 0
Network (Computer) Replacement T-07-02 (17,250) 0 0 0 0
PhDne System (VOIP or other) - City Hall T-09-01 0 0 (40,000) 0 0
City Hall Copier & Maintenance Contract T -09-02 0 0 (25,000) 0 0
Computer Upgrades T-11-06 (10,000) (10,000) (10,000) (10,000) (10,000)
Total (70,250) (10,000) (75,000) (10,000) (10,000)
Total Expenditures and Uses (70,250) (10,000) (75,000) (10,000) (10,000)
Change in Fund Balance (20,250) (10,000) (75,000) (10,000) (10,000)
Ending Balance 79,750 69,750 (5,250) (15,250) (25,250)
Thllndu\', .lilliI' 2/,2007
21
City of Shorewood, Minnesota
Capital bnprovement Program
2007 thru 2011
PROJECTS BY DEPARTMENT
Department Project# Priority 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total
Equipment Replacement I
Water Truck-Ford 7000 E-07-45 n/a 141,397 141,397
F350 & Flatbed E-07-49 n/a 41,031 41,031
F350 4x4 Pickup wlplDW E-07-55 n/a 35,349 35,349
MDwer - TDro Groundsmaster 325D E-07-70 n/a 22,093 22,093
Diesel Fuel Trailer 500 Gallons E-07-71 n/a 7,827 7,827
Attach - BIDwer for Groundsmaster E-07-75 nla 5,757 5.757
Attach - 1985 Cabs fDr GrDundmaster E-07-82 n/a 5,050 5,050
Snow Thrower - John Deere 826 (1970) E-07-91 n/a 947 947
Snow Thrower - John Deere 826 (1972) E-07-92 n/a 947 947
Attach - Flail side mower E-07-93 nla 16,160 16,160
Attach - Flail rear mower E-07-94 n/a 8,080 8,080
Ford 555 Backhoe E-08-22 n/a 70,257 70,257
Dump Truck - Ford L8000 (1988) E-08-33 n/a 147,205 147,205
Sweeper - Tennant 240 E-08-46 n/a 16,059 16,059
Speed Awareness Display E-08-51 n/a 24,OB8 24,088
Skid Steer - Bobcat 753 E-08-76 n/a 23,887 23,887
Dump Box Rehabilitation and Sander E-09-54 n/a 25,533 25,533
Dump Truck - Ford L8000 (1995) E-09-68 n/a 153,200 153,200
Tractor - Ford 3910 E-l0-35 n/a 39,094 39,094
Air CompressDr-lngersoll Rand 185 E-l0-38 n/a 16,465 16,465
Trailer 12' TDpS E-IO-41 n/a 3,458 3,458
Dump 1 tDn - 4 x 2 Ford F-350 E-IO-52 n/a 54,131 54,131
Groundsmaster Mower- Toro 32BD E-IO-57 n/a 26,314 26,314
MDwer - Toro Walk Behind 44 E-IO-73 nla 3,308 3,308
Attach2 - 1985 Cabs for Groundmaster E-l0-82 nla 6,015 6,015
Trailer 24' - Trail King E-II-21 nla 23,111 23,111
Mower - Toro Groundmaster 328D (84) E-II-74 nla 27,892 27,892
Sand Pro 3000 E-II-77 nla 13,548 13,548
Equipment Replacement Total 284,638 281,496 178,733 148,785 64,551 958,203
GRAND TOTAL 284,638 281,496 178,733 148,785 64,551 958,203
T1l11rldu\', J/lIl~ 21. 2007
22
City of Shorewood, Minnesota
Capitallmpr01.!ement Program
2007 thru 2011
PROJECTS BY YEAR
Project Name
Department
Project #
Priority
Project Cost
- -~ --".
2007 ~
2011 I
Equipment Replacement E-07-45 n/a 141,397
Equipment Replacement E-07-49 n/a 41,031
Equipment Replacement E-07-55 n/a 35,349
Equipment Replacement E-07-70 n/a 22,093
Equipment Replacement E-07-71 n/a 7,827
Equipment Replacement E-07-75 n/a 5,757
Equipment Replacement E-07-82 n/a 5,050
Equipment Replacement E-07-91 n/a 947
Equipment Replacement E-07-92 n/a 947
Equipment Replacement E-07-93 n/a 16,160
Equipment Replacement E-07-94 n/a 8,080
Total for 2007 284,638
Equipment Replacement E-OB-22 n/a 70,257
Equipment Replacement E-OB-33 n/a 147,205
Equipment Replacement E-08-46 n/a 16,059
Equipment Replacement E-OB-51 n/a 24,088
Equipment Replacement E-OB-76 n/a 23,B87
Total for 2008 281 ,496
Equipment Replacement E-09-54 n/a 25,533
Equipment Replacement E-09-68 n/a 153,200
Total for 2009 178,733
Equipment Replacement E-IO-35 n/a 39,094
Equipment Replacement E-IO-38 n/a 16,465
Equipment Replacement E-10-41 n/a 3,458
Equipment Replacement E-IO-52 n/a 54,131
Equipment Replacement E-10-57 n/a 26,314
Equipment Replacement E-IO-73 n/a 3,308
Equipment Replacement E-10-82 n/a 6,015
Total for 2010 148,785
Equipment Replacement E-11-21 n/a 23,111
Equipment Replacement E-11-74 n/a 27,892
Equipment Replacement E-11-77 n/a 13,548
Total for 2011 64,551
Tllllnc!ay, 11111<' 2/. 2007
23
Water Truck-Ford 7000
F350 & Flatbed
F350 4x4 Pickup w/plow
Mower - Toro Groundsmaster 3250
Diesel Fuel Trailer 500 Gallons
Attach - Blower lor Groundsmaster
Attach - 1985 Cabs IDr Groundmaster
Snow Thrower - John Deere 826 (1970)
Snow Thrower - John Deere 826 (1972)
Attach - Flail side mDwer
Attach - Flail rear mower
2008 ,
FDrd 555 Backhoe
Dump Truck - Ford L8000 (1988)
Sweeper-Tennant240
Speed Awareness Display
Skid Steer - Bobcat 753
2009 ,
Dump BDX Rehabilitation and Sander
Dump Truck - Ford L8000 (1995)
201 0 I
Tractor - Ford 3910
Air Compressor-Ingersoll Rand 185
Trailer 12' Tops
Dump 1 ton - 4 x 2 FDrd F-350
Groundsmaster MDwer- Toro 3280
Mower - TDro Walk Behind 44
Attach2 - 1985 Cabs lor GrDundmaster
Trailer 24' - Trail King
Mower - Toro GrDundmaster 3280 (84)
Sand Pro 3000
o
C"l
o
N
,
r-
o
o
N
D-
O
'0
o
o
3:
0)
"-
o
.c
(IJ
"-
o
~
6
C
o
n
::J
"-
u;
C
o
u
Q)
[(
ai
~
Ci3
"-
ro
0)
>-
'<t <D~ \ :0
.-r-o
000
Nr--:'Lri
Ol'<t
r-'C"l
C'5<fi
<fi
,
"-
ro
0)
>-
C"l'<t0
.-00
01.00
Nc.ci'Lri
oo'<t
'<tC"l
N'<fi
<fi
I
NNO
.-C"l0
0.-0
Nc.ci'Lri
o'<t
<DC"l
"':<fi
<fi
,
"-
ro
0)
>-
"-
ro
0)
>-
.-0l0
..-<DO
0000
NN'Lri
oo'<t
0C"l
...:<fi
<fi
,
"-
ro
0)
>-
000
..-.-0
01.00
No::iLri
1.O'<t
1.OC"l
<fi <fi
I
"-
ro
0)
>-
0100
000
01.00
Nc.ci'Lri
1.O'<t
..- C"l
<fi EA-
,
"-
ro
0)
>-
0000
000
000
N..fLri
1.O'<t
..-C"l
...:EA-
EA-
r-oo
000
000
NoLri
r-'<t
0lC"l
EA- <fi
"-
ro
0)
>-
0)
u
C
ro
iii
00
0lQ)
.S E
t 0
ro u
- C
(IJ_
ro
u
o
-I
C
ro,
0..:
,-I
gsl
>.!
,~;
<Ill
00
00
00
c.ci'Lri
<DOl
EA- <fi
O<D
or-
00
..:et5
(0.-
.-<D
<fi .
C"l
<fi
,
00
00
00
c.ci'Lri
<DOl
<fi <fi
N
r-
l.O.
'<t
Ol
'<to
.-
<fi
N<D
r-r-
l.OO
Leir--:'
l.OOl
<D. r-.
.-C"l
<fi EA-
I
00
00
00
c.ci'Lei
<DOl
EA- <fi
N
r-
C"l.
'<t
<D
o.
.-
<fi
N'<t
r-o
C"l1.O
Leic.ci'
NOO
N'<t
~N
<fi <fi
I
100
00
00
c.ci'Lei
<DOl
EA- <fi
C"lN
<D C"l
N.-
o::ic.ci'
co 0
OO<D
<fi -
.....
EA-
I
~ 0)\
I.O<D
~ui
r-C"l
.-l.O
<fi <fi
00
00
00
c.ci'Lei
<DOl
<fi <fi
1.O'<t
'<t..-
r-<D
or--:'
l.Ol.O
C"lC"l
EA- EA-
Ol Ol
l.O<D
C"l00
olN'
<DOO
00 0
<fi .
.....
<fi
I
00
00
00
c.ci'Lei
<DOl
<fi <fi
..-0
..- ..-
01.0
r--:'cO
'<t1.O
r-l.O
<fi EA-
I
.....
.....
o
c.ci'
00
l.O
<fi
000
000
OOl.O
c.ci'Lei..f
<D0l0l
<fi <fi '<to
..-
<fi
00
00
00
c.ci'Lei
<Den
<fi <fi
00
00
l.Ol.O
Leic.ci'
l.Ol.O
<D..-
. <fi
w'
00
00
00
..-..f
CO 1.0
..... ..-
<fi .
.....
<fi
0)
::0
..!l1
Oiij
>
ro
'0
C
::J
Ll..
OOOlOO..........NC"l
OO~~-c--c-'r"-r-
00000000
NNNNNNNN
'" 0)
0) U
'- C
:e co
'0 iii \
goo
a. '0
x C
UJUJ
O.....I.O'<tN.....NN
0..... '<t..-r-Olr-r-
'- l.Oor-<Dl.OCOC"ll.O
Ou; ..fc.ci'or--:'''':Lei..f..f
tiUJ ~~~~~~~~
0).2;- ...:<fi<fi<fi<fi<fi..........
\~:= <fi \ <fi<fi
,_ .c
.Cti'V)
\] ~ \ \ \
r- 0\0\C"l en[r- 0 C"l '<t C"l C"l
g ,gg~~~~~j::~~
N U; c.ci' Lei\C'5 ...: N' 00 ...: 0 C'5 Lei
UJ~~~~gg~~~~
~ \ , \~ <fi <fi \<fi <fi <fi <fi ~ \
\~\i\\,~\\ '\1' II ~\ I
\ I+::: a.C) '0 .~\ i
ro >-:::J [( I \'- '
t5,~i~I.8\ 0) :::(0) I 1611 \
i 0) \ ro' Q) 1'- \ C ! > -' I . I
\'0' (].JIO>i ~1.5,'~I'oc UII <Il,151 I'
'-,(IJ: ':2 '3:1 t"C 0''0
1~\~\~\~I~\!6!,~ ~\ ~ ~\~\
'O)lclc'E,,-lrol- Ero =.c:
il::i:c.ci Icu:Q):Q) ('0,....... ro;OI :
1(IJ;~:~'~ II:2 Z [(I(IJ >IUJ !
r-
o
o
~
.....
N
(0
\
~!\ \ I
II \ I \, I
~Htt
1\ '\~~\ \ I 1\,
(].J ~I \ i '
I~~ ~I i i \
i\~\~ll "I I \
~!,g Oil I i I
i ~1~"21 \ !
:~:c 01 Iii
~
o
24
o
C0
o
N
~
o
o
N
Cl.
(5
I~lglgl "I, ' I 10101
10 '<t.10_1, ' ' I I I I'!" !<A-I~i
!N[I~\gli I I I I i I~\
I """ """ I I I I ,I I 10.[
!1~il~HJ'-i Jf[LI1 ,~L -t, ,. -'-J.. .:i~H-f~i~! "
1~1:i1~1 I I I I I I \ l~, i I~I~I "
I, ie\~!, 'I ' , 'I', i 1,.....: j \1'-10:> :
... I" I ! ! I""" I 1""'1""".1 I
ml :~""'I Ii, 'I I: I! I ! 1 I I~I, ' :
j'l;;17, I I I I I' I 'I:'
~~i\~:g:_~ I [,---;- i I :'--~--I--:---~-- :-8I\-~;~!I--(J,--I---\-~~~~~--: r-: i !'
10 C0'O ' " i (0101 ' I I' ,r--,"""" I ,
NjC"f'\a, I I I I I \ I; \ I I \ Icri'\~ I j I I 'Icil~ I' 1 I
I Ib~: l I I Ii: \ 1 I i I ~w.1Nl I I \ l :~::L~ 1 \ I
(al I~""" ! I I I I : I ' I , II i 1 ! I ""', Ii, , 'I""':~I ii,
0.>1 ,,,,,,, I I " I I I I I I I 'I I I '''''' ,I"
>-\,~Ji~igi-tT I i '1--j--I---ll-j\-i~i ---r-- :---1-1- 1---'1 ~~I-lT :~i-~:- -;-: --\- -\ ' :
1~;~I~' , i I I I : I, I : I I b, 1 ! I II ; I \1 I I \ I~I\~! ~: I I I I
iNial I 1 \ I I I 'I I I l"l:tl I I I' \ l..q ,..... I \ I 1 I
... lenl~ I 1 'I I ',I 'ii I~' I I ' , , 'I I I I IN O.i : "I I
t1l ""r I " '" I I "I I ' 1 'I I' i I<A-\,,"" , I I \
~ll L.i__I:_~_ ~___: I--:-'II--\-! ;_J_\~I____c__I_ I J___.l__~_\_ L_L_~I J' I -I IJ--~--i
-I~ig\'g' I I [I :: ,I I 1121 II~i I[ , I I 'I 'I II 'I 'I !i2!~1 Iii 1 ! i 1 'I
I~I~~'~!I II i I I 'I II I \ I 1\ \~I 'I~! I I, 'I I I "i :~i;;5: I I ' \ I : II '
..., 1'<t 0 I I \ I '<t '<t I I' , ,0:> N ' I ' I I
~I\'_';:::-'I~ ~l -1- --~I 'II--~- \J~I---~I~~lcVl-IN ,~-!. II~I'-JI --'IJI--1---\ --I.-L-\---r1 \:~:i -- I: \ .)- I -~ \ J- :-
~ eplo I l ,~l I I (1) C1")1 1 , ' \ I I \ \(0 CO I I I 1 I I ' I
01'<t.\,0.1 \ 'I 1'<t.1 I I N.'r--.[ , 1 I I I I! I 'I I'<tJen. 1 ii, 'I 1 I
N~O' I! 'I-.:tl' I 11r--10:> I ' . \ I I I ,0101 \ ,I I "
(a' ~I~i 1 'I I ~i 1 ""'l~il 'I I I I 'I I I I I \ '\g Ir!: , i 'l :1 'I ' I I
o.>J ""'''''' 1""'1 I \ I I I I \ 'I WI""'! I ,I
~ \~\~.I~li -l-rr \ --1- I\'I~~: TI ill -\--r-r '\,--I\~I~II. ;dl~r~J TII t 11 I i
(aIN ~~; I I I I \ , i~\~1 I ! I I I I 'I ~I~I! \ \~I~i ; I I 1 I ! \ 1
~-\m~I~~-++ \ --\- .11- J101--1--!--,I\I- !~--! -lcoLIJI- ,\-J1Lnri..L\ iJ-\,:\~!--~-\- \__il ~ + -r ~u
Igll~.lg.! I I 'I 1 \gj.1 \! i I I I fe_ Q!;_ It3J I , 11;{1 ~_,~_! '[ I i I I ; !
IN 0 01 l I I \ r--I \ I t 10':)10\ M" I IMl ~Il.()\ ,l 1
(al '~I~\ I I I I ~ I I ! I I~I~ I 1~1 I \ !""'I I~i~, I I I : I i I I
~1~i"'.I,"j i LL U:.IJ ..1 I LI_; \U-rt-r -~ -~-~ , L-\- J~~~_ i _L f I_J .\ ..~--\
~i~II\li! i 'i lill i \ 'i \ 'Ill i \ [ \ \ \ \ ! \ \ I I I ill! : ': I \ ![ i \ I
?:'~_ 1_1_ _+__'-_ --_L--'--f--'-- LJ__ __I__-,_J__~_'__I_J._!J__,-.+J I u__J -I _LI ,-+-----
18\&118.1, I i I~.'i \ \ \' \ :1 II \ \ II i I I ! I II' \ \ \' \ Il3t:~.'11 ; II \ I I I i II
(aiNI~lgl I I I~\ 1 ! I I I : '\ I I I 'I I I I II I I 1~18i I I: 1'1 I I
0.>' 'N,""", I""'" I I, 'I ,I ItAIN, 'I 1
>-~I---\~-:I""'! -I-t- ~-~:~-~:m-o:oi~:-~tN(c;11N,m:-cn~"'tI~~CnLI0\oi-:D'len\ - i i~-i-: -~I'- -, ,-\ - :- - J, -
:gl I \ \~~gi8\Olglo\o!olo\olo!ol\g g~olOllg 010\018\ I 1 I I :! I \ I
\ 1.!Jl I i 1~INININ,NIN,N,NININININ NINININ NINI\NININi I~!~' , i , ' !
I I iil ! : I'~ i ~ i \ i i i \ I I I I I ! I i I I " 1 3! ~ I I ' i i ~:
I \ Cl 0.>1 t I t1l1 ' I I I' 'I' I I I I I I , I ' I \ l:alm, t I' ,LLI
, ,!:; IE, ' "0 i I I , 1 I I I 1 ' I ,I I ' gj I CD I I I I I 8'
1'1iiIO' 1151" II 'I'III'~I"II', 10.,3: '1-';:::1
'!U)'~I LL1' I 1 ~ ',I i: i ill I I I ii' IUjI~! I 1 I u
_, ul-,-------1NIO't!)I-oriO r-...\-"'INfo-lo:>i-c;.,-ICO:O:>I01IIO[inIC:O-la'i{)"ci5I- i -r-i-I [-- - L_: l__:~__
" , 0 J~{I~_\I~_"lgj_I[gJ~.:~Ii2.I~.I~.II*_,fe.IQ!;.'IPd_;~_:t3_I~_'\~\g.i~J I', 181
. (Jl 0:>'0 '<t r--1'<t,(O\r-- o:>,'<tllO Nlen 0 enl,,""'C0 lO CO'O:>\C0' , I u,
I I I~ WIr--I'<t'olen'''""I''"",''''''O:>''<t '<t,'<t'\N,N """ """1C01C0''<tIr--"",1 I I '&1
1,0.> Z-""'110 lO'''''''''''',''''' ''''''''''' N N ""'1"",1""',N ""'1"""""'1""'1 I I I '
e::=, 1""':""'1 'I' , ~""'I""'I I 11""'1 !:, I, ,.....1
1 ,Q :0 i ill Iii I \ . I, I I I i I. al:
\ m '00 ~ ' '(' :! I I ~ ' . i z '
it;:: t1l. ' I (f).
i~_~ 1__ 1.___ uu_,__L_._ ,._j '.' .',.' ..'. ~__.,__,_u_,~~,_... ._L'_ ,.'. .,.. L. ,I!~ I ~ .
i I INIO'O;OiOIO,O,OIO 0'010'0:0'0,0,010 OiO, IlO'O
!b: .:N.Oi010:O;O:O:O\OI.OiO,OIOiOjOl0iOiO!OiOi .-J
lO:~\M_100_;O_~O_!~jO_IOjO_10_!O_;OJO_lO_~O_:O_!O_IO_;O.IO.\N.i I~
N,WIO:>''<tllO'0:>IN''<tI(o!C0llOiC0:0'r--len''<t10101,,""INIC0,C0 Ie:
i I i~i~t~I~!~i~i~,~IM!ro\~lNI~\~l~iM)~:Vi~'~<ro
!, : ffi: Et7~ ~\~\ EA-; EA-l E77! \69-1 <:A-:~!~! EA-\E:A-i EA-I EA. \ErTiW!Y7!EA-\ : .~ ~
<c' I, ' I " ,~
Ie) _,____u .'_u_,_,.J_u_:.__ I ; I ',::2:
-r- --;~.
'OJ
iU
'OJ
...
.~
.g
E
"0
o
~
~
o
.J::
(f)
'0
Z-
U
C
0.>
E
0.>
Cl
t1l
e:
t1l
::2:
03
ro
3:
E
o
ill
e:
t1l
Ci
~
t1l
0.>
>-
X
.U)
i
I
t !
r--
o
o
f:::!
N
CO
-j-~- '-j--'-.-(
\
I
i .
.T"-'-\-
:?:.4-'
i"E1 ~:
'0"0'
0,...
u,o.
'"0
'0]
2
! i
~e: ."O~. o.>~.
_OJ e:t1l '>, ~
Cl..- E 00::: II.. 0::
o.>e) "0 ...Cl. 0 (5 = >-"0
~ t: g 0::,.9 0.> 'E "5, '0.>"0 I....: EO::
U OJ"" :g 3: ,(f).g>.,g <C t1l :::: 0::: >-(f), 0.> ro
,0.>0-' ~" et1l >" rn ,~ \- U ~:"Oo 'C! cu :5' C3 ~,o' ~',c:g7A
\- m ~-~ > 0 ~. ~ ~ ~.-:~ ~l\-:ro 0 ro
Cl.o::::2:t1lCl3:o.>t~O ...(f)O~e)uOJ...<.J::
E~o.>::2:EOc~o::l o.>lO(f)O::O.w::2:e)oU
\-2~m_~~.~E\-~o~~mo~oo~~o
OO]E~'" - t1l_.J::~O~~~C0O:>NMO:>
~> roro~OJro~t1lUONro o:>~mM,,""
~><~I~ZO::(f)>wmN~ lO~~N(O
-..,..J' >-,'
t1l,..o
"0"0
0.> OJ
t E {j5
(Jl' OJ :=
e:en..o
o (Jl 0]
:::;:ro(j)
0.' e: OJ
E ,Q ~
OJ ~ 0.>
cn.Eu
en 4- ~
<e:o
City of Shorewood Department of Public Works
20 Year Equipment Replacement Schedule
Unit Model Acq Life Year of Cost I I I I I I I
No Year Description Date (Yrs) Rplmt Basis 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
21 1987 Trailer 24' - Trail Kina 1987 25 2012 $ 14,500 $ - $ $ - $ - $ 23,111 $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ $ -
22 1987 Backhoe - Ford 555 1987 20 2007 $ 52,500 $ - $ 70,257 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ $ - $ - $ $
33 1988 Dumn Truck - Ford L8000 1988 15 2003 $ 110,000 $ - $ 147,205 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 332,816 $ - $ - $ - $ $ -
34 2004 Cub Cadet ATV 2004 15 2019 $ 12.500 $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ $ - $ - $ 31,754 $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ -
35 1988 Tractor - Ford 3910 1988 20 2008 $ 26,000 $ - $ $ - $ 39,094 $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
38 1990 Air Comaressor - Inaersall Rand 185 1990 20 2010 $ 10,950 $ - $ $ - $ 16,465 $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
41 1990 Trailer 12' - Tons 1990 20 2010 $ 2,300 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,458 $ - $ - is: - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
45 1989 Water Truck - Ford 7000 1992 20 2009 $ 112,000 $ 141,397 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
46 1982 Sweener - Tennant 240 1992 15 2007 $ 12,000 $ - $ 16,059 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ $ 38,486 $ - $ - $ $ -
49 1993 Flatbed - 4 x 2 Ford F350 1993 12 2005 $ 32,500 $ 41,031 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 82,561 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ $ $
50 1970 Pumn - 4' Discharae Rebuilt 1985 35 2020 $ 28,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 79,921 $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ -
51 1993 SPeed Awareness Disalay 1993 15 2008 $ 18,000 $ - $ 24,088 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ 57,728 $ - $ - $ - $ -
52 1994 Dumn 1 ton - 4 x 2 Ford F350 1994 15 2009 $ 36,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 54,131 $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
53 1995 Pickuo- 4 x 4 Ford F350 1995 10 2005 $ 28,000 $ 35,349 $ - $ - i$ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 63,305 $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
54 1995 Duma Truck - Ford 8000 1995 15 2010 $ 108,000 $ - $ - $ 153,200 $ - $ $ $ - 1$ - $ - $ $ $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
56 1995 Loader - Cat iT28F 1995 20 2015 $ 112,500 $ $ - $ - $ - $ $ $ - $ - $ 226,372 $ - $ $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ $ - S - $ $ -
58 1996 Grader - Cat 140H 1996 30 2026 $ 177,400 $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ $ $ $ 177 ,400
59 1996 Trailer 18' - Fell"i" FT 18WD 1996 20 2016 $ 10,200 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ 21,756 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ $ -
60 1987 Sewer Jetter - Sereco Trailer mount 1996 20 2016 $ 36,500 $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ 87,474 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
63 1998 Skid Steer - Bobcat 753 1998 9 2007 $ 17,850 $ - $ 23,887 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 40,357 $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 68,183 $ -
64 1997 Sand Pro 3000 1997 15 2012 $ 8,500 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 13,548 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
65 1998 Dum" Truck - Ford 1998 15 2013 $ 108,000 $ - $ - $ - $ :Ii - $ - $ 193,412 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
~ ~ck-Ford 1998 15 2013 $ 108,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 182,464 $ - $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ -
~ ' - Fellinn FT 3 2000 20 2020 $ 2,300 $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 6,193 $ - $ - $ $ - $ $ $ -
70 2000 Mower - Toro Groundsmasler 325D 2000 7 2007 $ 17,500 $ 22,093 $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ 33,220 - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ 49,951 $ - $ $ $ - $ $ -
71 2000 Generator - Generac 200 KW 2000 25 2025 $ 50,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - - $ $ - $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 180,177 $ - $ -
72 2000 Duma Truck - Frieahtliner FL80 2000 15 2015 $ 108,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 230,356 $ - $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
73 2000 Roller - Beulhlinn B2000 Static 2000 20 2020 $ 24,850 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - $ $ 70,930 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
74 2000 Sweeaer - Athey M9-D 2000 20 2020 $ 149,415 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - $ 402,341 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
75 2003 Mower -Toro Groundsmaster 328D 2003 7 2010 $ 17,500 $ - $ - $ - $ 26,314 $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 39,566 $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 59,492 $ - $ - $ -
76 2003 Truck - Ford F450 w/crane, tool box 2003 12 2015 $ 57,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 108,203 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
77 2005 Van - Oldsmobile 2004 10 2014 $ 19,100 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ 36,258 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 64,932 $ - $ $
78 2003 Pickua - 4 x 4 Ford F150 2003 10 2013 $ 26,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ 46,562 $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 83,386 $ - $ - $ $ -
80 2005 Pickun - 4 x 4 Ford F150 2005 10 2015 $ 26,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ $ - $ - $ 52,317 $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 93,692 II $ - $ -
81 2005 Pickuo - 4 x 4 Ford F350 2005 10 2015 $ 28,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ $ - $ - $ 56,342 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
82 2003 Generator - Cat 35 KW 2003 20 2023 $ 35,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 118,985 $ - $ - $ -
84 2005 Mower - Toro Groundsmasler 328D 2005 7 2012 $ 17,500 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 27,892 $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ 44,456 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 66,846 $ -
2000 Attach - Blower for Groundsmaster 2000 14 2014 $ 4,560 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 8,656 $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ -
1972 Attach - Blower for Groundsmaster 1972 14 1986 $ 4,560 $ 5,757 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ $ 13,016 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
1985 Attach - Cabs for Groundsmaster 1985 14 1999 $ 4,000 $ 5,050 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ 11,417 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ -
1985 Attach - Cabs for Groundsmaster 1985 14 1999 $ 4,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 6,015 $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 13,598 $ - $ $ -
1985 Attach - Cabs for Groundsmaster 1985 15 2000 $ 4,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 10,161 $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ -
1988 Attach - Flail rear mower Aa Tractor 1988 15 2003 $ 6,400 $ 8,080 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
1988 Attach - Fiail side mower Aa Tractor 1988 15 2003 $ 12,800 $ 16,160 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
2007 Duma Box Rehabilitation and Sander 2007 10 2008 $ 18,000 $ - $ - $ 25,533 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 40,696 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
2003 Enoineffransmission Analysis Station 2003 15 2018 $ 4,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -11$ - $ - $ 9,586 $ $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - ~~ - $ -
1995 Mower - Toro Walk Behind Proline 44 1995 15 2010 $ 2,200 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,308 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - $ 2,200
1970 Snow Thrower - John Deere 826 1970 15 1985 $ 750 $ 947 $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,269 $ - $ - $ - $
1972 Snow Thrower - John Deere 826 1972 25 1997 $ 750 $ 947 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ 2,269 - $ - $ $ - $ -
2007 Diesel Fuel Trailer 500 aall 2007 25 2032 $ 6,200 $ 7,827 $ - $ -11$ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $
$ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ -
TOTALS $ 284,638 $ 281,496 $ 178,733 $ 148,784 $ 64,551 $ 182,464 $ 239 974 $ 186337 $ 335,031 $ 252,112 $ 183,925 $ 97061 $ 168,933 $ 408 534 $ 225,236 $ 337,354 $ 179,600 $ 257,007 $ 273.869 $ 135028 $ 179,600
Notes:
''Year of Replacement" is the theoretical year for a typical service life. The actuai proposed year of replacement may be ionger or shorter, as shown in the body of the table,
26
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-012B. www,cl.shorewood,mn,us . cityhall@cLshorewood,mn,us
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Council
Craig W. Dawson, City Administrat
Bonnie Burton, Director of Finance
June 21, 2007
Budget Calendar and Kick-off
TO:
FROM:
Attached is the calendar for the 2008 budget. It follows the customary sequence of budget review,
with consideration first of the tax-supported activities to meet the September 15 deadline to adopt the
"proposed tax levy" (i.e., the "not to exceed" figure). The review of enterprise budgets begins in the
fall, and is concluded in November in order to assemble the total City budget for the truth-in-taxation
presentation on December 3, and eventual adoption by the City Council later in December.
Review of the tax-supported budget is scheduled to begin with a work session August 6. All of the
Monday evenings in August have been set aside for budget work sessions as needed.
This is the kick-off of the 2008 budget process. Staff members are beginning work on their
individual budgets. It is extremely helpful for Council members to identify goals or specific
programs that they would like to have staff address or present in the proposed budget.
In overview, staff expects a general continuation of the status quo in terms of the scope and costs of
day-to-day operations. The greatest volatility will likely be in costs associated with petroleum and
energy. There will be a slight increase in employer costs for PERA in 2008, as required by State law.
Activities in 2008 may shift the focus of resources (e.g., the Comprehensive Plan update is due by the
end of 2008, but little additional cost is associated with this task). The major change in costs will
result from transfers to capital funds to pay for 2008 and future projects.
The goal in any budget is to provide needed services and enhancements at the most reasonable cost
and financial prudence. This will be the guide for preparing the 2008 budget as well.
f".
tJ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CITY Of SHOREWOOD
Year 2008 Budget Schedule
Date Description
06/25/07 crp Budget Work-session; Operating budget philosophy discussion
06/29/07 Budget worksheets distributed to staff and department heads.
07/16/07 Completed budget worksheets due back to Finance from staff.
08/06/07 Work-session: General Fund Operating Budget draft (Council and Staff)
08/13/07 Work-session: Additional General Fund session, if needed (Council and Staff)
08/20/07 Work-session: Additional General Fund session, if needed (Council and Staff)
08/27/07 Work-session: Additional General Fund session, if needed (Co unci I and Staff)
09/10/07 Regular Council meeting. Council adopts 2008 proposed budget and levy.
09/15/07 Proposed budget and levy must be adopted and certified to County Auditor
by this date. State form Payable 2008 PT Form 280 also to be submitted.
10/22/07 Work-session: Enterprise Budget session (Council and staff)
11/05/07 Work-session: Enterprise Budget session (Council and staff)
11/13/07 Work-session: Additional Enterprise session, if needed (Council and Staff)
11/20-11/24 Counties to mail Notice of Proposed Property Tax by this date.
11/29/07 Budget hearing advertisement published in the official newspaper.
12/03/07 Truth-In- Taxation Budget Public Hearing.
12/10/07 Regular Council meeting. City initial truth-in-taxation hearing,
Final 2007 budgets and levy to be adopted.
12/17/07 rf required, the continuation truth-in-taxation hearing to be held on this date.
12/28/07 Final levy and budgets must be certified to the County Auditor by this date. State
forms Payable 2008 Property Tax Levy Report and PT Form TNT2008 also due,
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA55331-8927. (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-012B. www,ci,shorewood,mn,us . cityhall@cLshorewood,mn,us
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Council
Craig W. Dawson, City AdministratoJ1')l\.
June 21, 2007 Vj)
Realignment of responsibilities of Friends of the Southshore Center and the five
South Lake Minnetonka Cities; and Senior programming (Work Session Item)
Earlier this year, SCS convened a forum of the five South Lake Minnetonka cities to review the
responsibilities for funding the Southshore Center and for their contributions to SCS for senior
programming. The major issues to address as the process started were:
. Whether and to what extent the cities should relieve the Friends of the Southshore Center of
their obligation to pay for all of the costs of the building, Under the current agreement, the
cities paid for the construction of the Southshore Center, and the Friends are responsible for all
subsequent operations, maintenance, repair, and replacement costs.
. Development of a capital maintenance/replacement plan.
. Whether and at what level the cities should continue contributions for senior programming
services, and how those costs may be reallocated among the five cities.
At the third meeting in this series of forums, representatives of the Friends Board presented a
proposal which, in its essence, would have the cities assume responsibility for costs related to the
Southshore Center building, and the Friends would be responsible for raising revenues for the costs
associated with providing programs and services in the Center. At the end of that mid-April meeting,
it was understood (at least by most present) that a committee comprised of the city manager/
administrators, two or three members of the Friends, and perhaps a few representatives ofSCS,
would meet to identify and address issues or concerns regarding the proposal, and to refine it where
possible. The committee did not meet until June 18, during which time the Friends representatives
fine-tuned their proposal to present directly to the city councils, and drafted a resolution for each
council in order to implement their new proposal.
A change in emphasis for the immediate future: In the interim, to comply with a new federal
program, the Metropolitan Council (through its Metro Transit division) issued a Request for
Proposals (RFP) for dial-a-ride transit services to cover the "Minnetonka area" - City of Minnetonka,
South Lake Minnetonka cities, and Westonka cities - that SCS had begun and provided continuously
as three service areas for many years. SCS and Metro Transit staff disagreed on whether one
particular item was to be included as an expense; when Metro Transit staff added it, SCS was no
longer the low responsible proposer, and the contract was awarded to a private for-profit
organization. SCS has formally protested the action, and the Metropolitan Council will take up the
matter at a meeting on June 22. At present, SCS will provide dial-a-ride service through August 31,
2007.
f".
t ~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
....
ill
Re: Responsibilities for Funding Southshore Center, Senior Programming
June 25,2007, City Council Work Session
Page 2
According to SCS, its financial performance with the dial-a-ride service has provided the additional
revenue needed to subsidize the services it provided at the Southshore Center ($55,000 in 2007) and
the Gillespie Center in Mound. By no longer having revenue from the dial-a-ride contract, without
additional revenue SCS will no longer have the level of income to continue to provide services at the
Southshore Center. The SCS Board has voted to continue services at the Southshore Center through
October 31, 2007; some Board members will be proposing to continue services through the end of
this year.
At the June 18 "committee" meeting, whose participants also included members of the cities'
councils, the conversation shifted and centered on the likelihood that SCS would not be able to
continue its services at the Center, and what could be done for senior programming in 2008. Those in
attendance agreed to bring their respective organizations a proposal for one-year bridge financing in
2008: the Friends would raise an additional $25,000, and the cities would match that amount (based
on the original building funding formula) in addition to the amounts they forwarded to SCS or the
Friends in 2007. This proposal would ensure that the Center and its services remained in operation
while the original purpose of the forums - to consider changing the responsibilities of the Friends and
the cities regarding the building and services in the Center - could be addressed with proper
deliberation.
Back to the Friends proposal: The Friends estimate the annual cost to operate the Center at $56,000.
The Friends estimate that they could sustain $40,000 in rental income (which is an amount above
what the Center has been averaging), and the cities would pay the Friends $16,500 they needed, or
essentially the same as they paid toward SCS/Friends in 2007, for the balance of operations/
maintenance costs. Individual cities could contribute more if they wished. The cities would also
become responsible for major maintenance and replacement items; a schedule and probable costs of
them need to be more fully developed at this time.
The Friends would still be responsible for all costs, but their focus would shift to funding
programming costs, as the cities would no longer be making voluntary annual payments to SCS. The
Friends propose to transform their current ~$65,000 reserve as a "contingency fund". It would be
used when deficits or overages occurred when the Friends annual expenses and salaries
(programming costs) exceeded or fell under the revenue from rentals and the cities. If the
contingency fell below $30,000, the cities would need to provide additional funding to the Friends to
restore it at that level; and if it went above $90,000, the cities' proportionate contributions would be
reduced for the next year.
SCS's 2007 costs for providing services is approximately $75,000. When combining the building
operations costs with the senior programming costs, the current Center is about a $130,000 operation
annually. It appears that after 2008, the Friends would face a challenge to find a combination of
ways to raise more revenue and reduce the cost for programming to address what is currently a
$50,000 cost that the proposed bridge financing gap would cover.
Re: Responsibilities for Funding Southshore Center, Senior Programming
June 25,2007, City Council Work Session
Page 3
Subsequent Questions, Concerns, and Proposals: Since mid-April, several questions and ideas have
been identified (see attachments from C. Dawson, D. Woodruff, G. de la Vega, and L. Whittaker).
These types of issues were intended to be discussed on June 18, but were sidetracked by the more
immediate issue of continuing senior programming. They need to be discussed regardless of whether
SCS prevails and retains the contract for dial-a-ride services, or whether the 2008 bridge financing
concept is necessary and agreed to. These four persons' communications indicate that there are many
technical as well as philosophical issues that differ from the Friends's proposal and need to be fleshed
out before the five city councils consider actions to change what has been in place for over ten years.
The cities would be taking on greater responsibility for costs related to the building, as well as greater
exposure for programming costs than they do currently.
There is agreement among the forum participants that it makes sense for the cities to assume greater
financial responsibility related to their asset the Southshore Center. They also agree that there
needs to be greater acknowledgement that it is a community center, and more effort is needed to
further that use of the facility.
In terms of the seniors' use of the building, it may make sense to combine Southshore's Advisory
Council to the SCS with the Friends.
It is also not appropriate to make changes in the arrangements between the Friends and the cities
through a resolution. It may be appropriate to use a resolution as a statement of intent about what is
to be accomplished. A resolution is not binding on all parties, and any city may decide no longer to
participate in the arrangement in the resolution. The 1996 cooperative agreement among the cities
for the Center, and the 1996 lease between the cities and the Friends for the Center, are binding on all
parties. They should be amended in order to effect any changes in those agreements and bind all
parties to them.
Dear Elected Officials & Staff
As a representative of the Senior Center "Friends Board", I would like to share with you
the evolution of the funding and support of the South Lake Minnetonka Senior Center of
which your City is an owner. In 1996, the elected officials of the five Cities of
Deephaven, Greenwood, Tonka Bay, Shorewood, & Excelsior along with some
concerned senior citizens embarked on an aggressive journey to provide a home for the
senior community. Much like the Cities support the youth with ball fields, hockey rinks
and playground equipment, the Cities felt that support of the older demographic was a
task that they were up to given the trends that were occurring. Over 10% of the
population of the Cities is over the age of 65 and that percent is growing every year.
During the course of a calendar year over 1700 different seniors visit the center to play
cards, take a course in computer, learn how to paint with water colors, or just to socialize
with there friends.
In 1996, a joint agreement between the Cities was signed. The agreement gave each city
an equity share in the structure equal to its senior population and subsequent contribution.
Shorewood contributed the land. The % ownership by City is as follows: Shorewood
(50), Excelsior (14.60), Deephaven (22.45), Greenwood (3.95), and Tonka bay (9.00). In
addition to the Cities contribution, a 501 (C) (3) was fonned, the "Friends", raised an
additional $100,000 to support the construction and equipping of the facility. At the time,
Senior Community Services (SCS), a private not for profit company offered to support
the "Friends" efforts to provide programs and services to the new senior community.
SCS had access to Block Grants and United Way funds as well as State and Federally
supported programs. SCS accesses funds for their support through grants, fees, and
contributions. Originally, the Block Grants and the United Way funds were sufficient to
offset costs; however, in the past few years, those Block Grants have diminished and the
United Way funds have lessened. As such, SCS has approached the Cities on numerous
occasions and asked for support. The five cities have generously committed added
funding to SCS. During this period of time, "Friends" was designated the care taker of
the facility. The "Friends", through rentals, Misc, contributions and fund raisers would
off set the cost of operations while the Cities maintained the risk of catastrophic costs
should something that was not insured occur, like replacement of a roof or flood or
foundation issues. Also, during the subsequent years, some minor misunderstandings
arose between the SCS role and the "Friends" role. Mix up in rental and activity use of
space, open and close of the facility, cost of programs, and many smaller, annoying
situations that reflected the need to have better communication.. You as elected officials
probably already know, SCS operates multiple sites and contributions to SCS are not
necessarily ear marked for any single location; hence, we are not certain how many
dollars the Cities contribute end up in the South Shore Center. Because, there is no
formal relationship, "Friends" has not spent time determining what is appropriate and
what isn't.
The "Friends" would like to take a more active role in management of the activities and
programs offered to our citizens at the Senior Center. We have just gone through a long
difficult process of re organizing the "Friends" board in order to be able to take a more
proactive role in the total operations of the Senior Center. Part of that re organization is to
ask the Cities for a change in the maImer by which they support the Center. The proposed
resolution is requesting that the Cities contribute $16,500, the amount contributed to SCS
in 2006, directly to the Senior Center "Friends", In 2007, the amount budgeted by the
Cities was nearly double that amount; however, based on our financial analysis of
historical performance and costs, we believe, the 2006 amount is sufficient to balance the
budget. Any amount above that commitment can be contributed to the SCS if Cities so
desire. The fund raising that has been part of the "Friends" activity previously, will now
be directed to the support of programs and SCS. In addition, the "Friends" will create a
formal business relationship with SCS by assuming 25% of the Center Mangers
compensation so that the "Friends" have control over specific tasks.
So what is in it for the Cities? First, the "Friends" have a $64,000 reserve. It is our
intention to use that reserve to keep the operations in balance and to minimize the Cities
exposure to a catastrophic event. Our model establishes a floor and a ceiling in the
reserve fund. The floor being $30,000 and the ceiling being $90,000. Using the Cities
annual contribution of $16,500, the budget would not need further adjustments unless the
reserve fell below $30,000 at which time the Cities would be asked to contribute
additional funds. In the case of the fund exceeding $90,000, the Cities would be asked to
reduce their contributions. Quite frankly, the Cities have greater exposure today then
under our proposal because, the Cities do not have access to the 'Friends" reserve should
an unexpected expense occur. Additionally, your contribution goes to support and ensure
that your asset is protected, while contributions to SCS help SCS balance its books and
hopefully provide programs to the seniors. "Friends" does not anticipate an adversarial
relationship with SCS, in fact we believe that with "Friends" new focus on programs, the
collaborative efforts of both with result in a more effective and efficient program. An
additional feature to our proposal is that each City designate a person to represent the
City on the "Friends" board. We suggest that it not be an elected official. This same type
of arrangement exists on the LMCC and LMCD boards today.
This is clearly a subtle change, but one that recognizes the changing environment and
both the interests of the Cities and the needs of the seniors. Please suppOli our proposal.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood, ("City") is one of five (5) cities
which are parties to the Cooperative Agreement for the South Shore
Senior/Community Center dated March 4, 1996, which provided for the
construction and financing of construction of the South Shore Community
Center at 5735 Country Club Road, Shorewood, Minnesota; and WHEREAS,
pursuant to that agreement the City has 50.00 percent ownership of the
Center building; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to protect it's
investment in the real estate by ensuring adequate maintenance of the
building and its operating systems; and WHEREAS, the Friends of the
South Shore Senior Community Center, ("Friends"), is the entity
operating the Center on a lease from the five cities; and
WHEREAS, the original provisions of said Cooperative Agreement have
proved inadequate to ensure proper funding for said maintenance should
unexpected needs arise;
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City to agree with the other four
(4) Owner cities under said Cooperative Agreement for funding of the
South Shore Senior/Community Center as follows
1. City will contribute and pay to the Friends an amount equal to
50.00% of $16,500 per year (2006 Base Year Amount Contributed by the
Cities) or more as the City sees fit, for the operation, maintenance
and repairs of the Center.
2. The Friends will continue to rent out the Center for rental income,
which will be spent on the necessary operation and maintenance of the
Center.
3. If the Friends annual expenses and salaries exceed rental income
plus contributions from the five cities, the Friends will pay deficits
out of the Friends' Contingency Fund, which now is approximately
$60,000.
4. If said fund is ever depleted to $30,000 or less, City will
contribute its proportionate share in order to bring the fund back to a
balance of $30,000.
5. If said Fund ever rises to $90,000 or more, City will reduce its
next contribution by the City's proportionate amount so as to bring the
fund back to a balance of $90,000. The Friends reserve the right to
request that the ceiling be raised if such economic conditions dictate.
6. City will appoint one person residing in the City to be a voting
member of the Friends Board of Directors. The appointee can not be an
elected official of City.
7. City shall have the discretion from year to year to make additional
contributions for programming and services which benefit residents of
the City and other area cities.
8. The City's representative on the board will be responsible to the
City for reports and frequency of reporting as designated by the City,
but not to exceed monthly reports on rental income, other income,
expenses, debts payable and asset balances.
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SH~REWOOD. MINNESOTA 55331-8927 . (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-012B . www.cl.shorewood.mn,us. cityhall@cLshorewood,mn.us
Celebrating 50 Years · 1956 - 2006
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City C;ouncil
Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator cd)
April 20,2007
Update on Discussions about Southshore Center & Senior Programming;
Request for Questions/Concerns
On February 15,2007, Senior Community Services (SCS) convened a forum for the five South Lake
Minnetonka cities to review the responsibilities for funding the Southshore Center and for their
contributions to SCS for senior programming. On February 26, the City Council agreed to continue
Shorewood's participation in these discussions. Councilmembers communicated to me their
questions and requests for information during the review process, and these were forwarded to SCS
by letter (attached).
The major issues to address during the process are:
. Whether and to what extent the cities should relieve the Friends of their obligation to pay
for all of the costs of the building. Under the cun"ent agreement, the cities paid for the
construction ofthe Southshore Center, and the Friends are responsible for all subsequent
operations, maintenance, repair, and replacement costs.
. Development of a capital maintenance/replacement plan.
. Whether and at what level the cities should continue contributions for senior programming
services, and how those costs may be reallocated among the five cities.
There have been three meetings.
. On March 8, there was a wide-ranging discussion on senior programming, and SCS's
experience at the Southshore Center. There was also discussion about cities' financial
support for senior programming services, and whether funding should be based on usage
or population. (This report is based on meeting notes, as I was out of town and thus not
attending.)
e On March 22, SCS reviewed expenditure and revenue data since 1994 for its operations at
the SouthshoreCenter. They showed that the SCS had been s:ubsidizing its services at
Southshore Center since 1994, and that the level of subsidy had increased over time as
certain funding sources shrank (e.g" Community Development Block Grant [CDBGJ).
The five cities began making contributions to programming services in 2002 to offset the
growing deficits. Two of the five city councils included in their budgets the additional
contributions requested of them in 2007, SCS has been able to cover its deficits by
general fundraising and donations, with some additional undesignated program revenue.
11'1>
Q () PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
"'w
Update on Southshore Center, Senior Programming Discussions
& Request for Questions/Concerns
April 20, 2007
Page 2
. On April 17, SCS provided a repOli that strove to show the number of unique individuals
served, and the numbers per city, as well as a listing of the services and activities it
provided at the Center. This repOli was partially responsive to the questions and
information requested by Shorewood. (This report is attached.)
The Friends of the Southshore Center provided information about its financial standing as
well as some projections on capital maintenance/replacement. The Friends has about
$64,400 in cash, of which $28,850 is set aside for capital improvements. It had net
income of$788 in 2006. The Friends's capital maintenance/replacement was a work-in-
progress, and LaITY Brown had provided some preliminary estimates of replacement costs
for many of the items. The figures in the two lists were not always in the same ballpark,
however. .
Most of the conversation at the meeting focused on a proposal from the Friends Board,
given by board member Tom Anderson, fonner Deephaven mayor. In the simplest of
terms, the proposal was:
o The cities would assume the costs of operating and maintaining the building. The
revenue from renting the facility would go to the cities to offset their costs. In the
example given, rental income of $40,000 would leave the cities to fund $12,000 in
operations & maintenance of the building, or in the range of what they have been
paying to SCS.
o The Friends would pay for programming services. They believed they could be
more successful in raising funds and donations if they were tied to the direct
experience of participating in programs.
The belief of the Friends, and generally shared by those in attendance, was that the cities'
interests could be more directly identified with the welfare of the physical asset they owned -
the building and grounds. This would be a more appropriate choice in deciding whether to
fund the building or senior programming.
It was to this conce t that the'discussion rou re uested that members of the Cit Councils wei h in
~nd share their questions and concerns about whether and how to develop this model.
Among the questions I would have are:
. Who/what organization is going to perform the facility rental services?
. How likely is rental income going to be maintained and increased? The example shown in
the Friends presentation showed rental income higher than has been the case historically.
e The costs for operations & maintenance of the Center appear to be in the $50,000 -
$60,000 range. Anything above the amounts the cities now pay to SCS would be a
significant cost increase to each city,
e Costs to the cities for long-term capitalmaintenanceireplacement would be on top of the
O&M costs. A more defmitive schedule and probable costs need to be developed.
Update on Southshore Center, Senior Programming Discussions
& Request for Questions/Concerns
April 20, 2007
Page 3
. The Southshore Center is a community center, and not solely a senior center. The
allocation for the construction costs of the building were based on each city's total
population, not its shm'e of the senior population. The funding allocation among the cities
will need to be determined whether it remains a community center or a senior center.
. Similarly, the Friends of the Southshore Center are to raise funds and operate it as a
community center. It appears that things have morphed such that the Friends activities are
to benefit seniors almost exclusively. The role of the Friends needs to be revisited and
perhaps redefined, and in so doing may require changes in the agreement between the
cities and the Friends.
. Should there be some requirement that the Friends contribute something to the O&M of
the building? A lot of these costs are attributable to the use ofthe building. Or should the
cities wholly or pmiially subsidize the use of the building as their contribution to keep
program fees affordable?
The goal of the discussion group is to have proposals and/or recommendations for the cities in order
that they can be addressed in the early stages of their budget deliberations (i.e., beginning of
summer). I anticipate several meetings of a subcommittee (comprised of the city manager/
administrators, two or three Friends Board members, and one or two staff from SCS) over the next
several weeks. Any comments, questions, or concerns you may have regarding the proposed model
should he forwarded to me within the next week or so.
Page 1 of2
Craig Dawson
.-----.-----.----.------..---------.--.-.--------.'.-..". .
From: Dick Woodruff [dick.woodruff@yahoo,coml
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 10:25 AM
To: Craig Dawson
Subject: Southshore Center direction
Craig,
Please pass this on to the Mayor and other Council members.
Restructuring the [mancial responsibilities for the Southshore Center needs to be done with the end
result bringing the interests of the various constituencies into better alignment with their role in
financing and management.
The Center serves the five cities (ignoring the people it serves from outside who are a secondary
consideration). It has a general public role and has also developed a major focus on serving Seniors. The
Cities have largely ignored the general public purpose and the role of serving Seniors has become
predominant. While serving Seniors is very important, it's time to get some focus on the larger mission,
serving the general population of the Cities.
I advocate changing the financing and management structure for the Center. I believe the Cities should
be responsible for the physical plant management and operating expenses. This is consistent with
promoting and protecting their investments and the general service role of the Center. In this model, the
Cities would establish a board (similar to the Fire Board) which would manage the funding and overall
direction of the Center's use and operations.
Funding would be a combination of user fees paid to the Center and subsidies provided by the Cities.
The objective would be to have the net cost to the Cities approximate what they have been paying in the
recent past although, this might be an aggressive objective.
User fees would include all casual rental income plus, rent paid by "permanent tenants" such as Senior
Community Services and the Friends. Casual rentals would be promoted and managed by the new
Center Board (hire it out to a group similar to Shorewood's contracting with Community Rec Services).
This puts the Cities in charge of maximizing the use of their investment and minimizing their annual
expenses and places an external entity, that wants to maximize rents in order to maximize their own
income, in charge of rental promotions.
All of the senior services would be funded by a combination of the Friends fund raising and moneys
from Senior Community Services. These two groups now focus on the senior users and, in this model,
would not be distracted by overall operation of the physical plant. If the services to seniors are to be
expanded or contracted, these two organizations, who are focused on the senior users, would be 100% in
charge of the decision making and paying the resulting rents to the Cities.
Putting the model I suggest into place will take much thought and more than a little time. I believe it can
be done this year, but likely not in time to meet time lines for 2008 budgeting. Therefore, I recommend
that the Cities make budgets for 2008 based on the way the Center has been budgeted before. The
transition to the model I suggest could start later this year or in 2008.
5/7 /2007
South Shore Center Committee: "Program" Funding Proposal:
1) Determine building contingency fund amount, and timeframe for fully funding.
a) I would recommend $100K over a ten year period.
b) The five cities would contribute annually based on ownership percentage.
c) All city contributions would be used for the building contingency fund only,
2) The "Friends" would fund the operating needs of the facility by continuing do to what they currently do.
a) Building operational costs would continue to be paid by the efforts of the Friends.
b) Excess monies, if any, derived from the "Friends" fund raising activities would be used as follows:
i). One half of excess proceeds would be dedicated to the building contingency fund, until fully
funded.
iI). The second half of the excess funds could then be used for "program" funding. (e.g. Senior
Programs).
Iii). The "Friends" would recommend to the cities which programs should receive funding. This
recommendation would be based on a cost/benefit analysis of the programs.
iv). The Cities would reserve the right to limit this funding and to use these funds for other purposes at
their discretion.
3) The South Shore Center should be refocused and marketed as a Community Center not only a "Senior Center".
a) Develop a plan for increasing the rental of the facility.
b) Develop additional programs and services that have a broader appeal and increase the use of the
facility by other segments of the community.
c) Raise the community awareness of the facility and its potential uses.
Questions for South Shore Center Sub-committee:
1) How large a building contingency fund should be established?
2) When is the target date for having the contingency fund fully funded?
3) What changes to the "Friends" charter need to be made to allow for program funding participation?
4) What perfonnance targets or goals should be established tomeasure the South Shore Center and program
effectiveness? (e,g. % days facility rented)
5) How can we maximize the center's revenue generating capabilities?
6) What other community service program providers do we want at the center?
7) How will the day to day management of the facility be undertaken? Does it make sense to use Senior Services
to do this or should we consider having our own employees?
8) Do the Friends want to undertake the management of the facility? Including the assessment of programs being
offered. and of the agencies offering the programs?
9) How do we better capture infonnation about the use of the facility?
10) What cost saving opportunities exist at the center?
de:l a V 66 lij~
e~V!;tA
o
6/11/07 CC Work Session Item
Funding of South shore Community
Center and SCS - Senior Services
June 8, 2007
City Council
Larry Whittaker, City Manager
Senior Community Services (SCS)
On June 15,2006, Ben Withhart, Executive Director of Senior Community Services (SCS) - a
non-profit organization that has provide programs and services to senior citizens in the South
Lake Area for many years, sent the City a letter requesting an increase in City funding from
$2,500 - for 2006 - to $5,169 for 2007, $7,839 for 2008, and $10,508 for 2009. In the course of
discussing this request, the City learned that the five south lake cities had been contributing
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to support SCS services since 1994; and,
the amount ofthose funds had been gradually diminishing ever since - from $27,001 in 1994 to
$1,600 in 2006. Apparently, the history of city participation in the funding for these programs
and services goes back to the mid-1980s.
In 2002, SCS asked the cities to make separate appropriations from general revenues to make up
for some of the lost CDBG funds; and, the cities agreed to contributions of$14,000 for 2002,
2003 and 2004. The funding from the cities increased to $16,500 in 2005. Since that time, SCS
has reported an expected decrease in funding from the United Way and, now, from the "Dia1-a-
Ride" program. I think several other things should be noted as well:
1. The Southshore Seniors have contributed $5,000 per year from 1994 through 2006. This
amount was not increased unti12006 - to $5,150.
2. The Budget has increased about 4% per year since 1994 - from $48,118 to $76,949 in 2006.
3. Program fees (for special events and off-site trips, etc.) cover the out-of-pocket expenses for
those programs. No administrative fees have been added to these charges.
4. SCS has funded many of expenses through grants and their own fund-raising efforts.
5. SCS has, basically, been in a partnership with the cities and the Friends to staff and manage the
Southshore Center since the Center was built.
A summary of the SCS budgets - and their budget requests - are attached to this Memo. Their
most recent letter - about the "Dial-a-Ride" contract is also enclosed.
Then, in 2006, the City of Deephaven decided to dedicate their contributions to the Friends of the
Southshore Center for maintenance of the Southshore Community Center building - rather than
for the programs and services managed by SCS. This reduced the funding for SCS by an
additional $4,500. And, subsequent to approval of the 2007 SCS and City budgets, the City of
Shorewood reduced its contribution by $6,500 in January, 2007. Now, there is an active effort to
eliminate all city contributions to the services and programs that SCS provides and dedicate all
city contributions to the operation and maintenance of the Southshore Community Center.
Memo, Funding Southshore Community Center
June 8, 2007
Page 2
The Friends of the Southshore Community Center (the Friends)
About the same time (fall, 2006), the Friends of the Southshore Center (the Friends) - a non-profit
organization established to manage and maintain the Southshore Community Center building
when the five cities fmanced the construction ofthe building in 1996, began appealing for
assistance with the expenses of maintaining the building.
The Friends have been raising an average of$65,000 each year through rental of the Center,
donations and fund-raising programs. That is a lot of money for volunteers to generate each year
when less than half of that is coming from building rentals (an average of $26,536 over the past
three years). These funds are used to operate and maintain the Southshore Community Center
building (i.e. heating, electricity, garbage collection, telephone, water, sewer, insurance, janitorial
services, supplies and routine building maintenance). Despite "incessant fund-raising" and many
volunteer hours, the Friends have not been able to establish adequate reserves for major capital
expenses.
Although the Friends have about $64,000 in cash, only $28,850 is set aside for capital
improvements. Based on the estimates provided by the Friends and the Shorewood Public Works
Director, Larry Brown, the anticipated long-term capital needs approach $185,000 over 20 years
_ and we are 13 years into that 20 years. We should have been budgeting about $9,250 each year
for long-term capital projects (i.e. the replacement of the roof, furnaces, AlC units, maintenance
of the parking lot and irrigation system); and, we should have a reserve of about $120,000 now.
We would have to contribute over $13,000 each year over the next seven years to have adequate
reserves for anticipated long-term capital needs.
The proposal now being circulated by Tom Anderson advocates that the current contributions
from all five cities should be made to the Friends - to preserve and maintain the asset (building)
that the cities financed in 1996. With operating expenses averaging about $45,000 per year and
annual reserve requirements for capital needs of $13,000, the proposed contribution of $16,500
plus the average rental income of about $26,500 (not $40,000 suggested in the background
information), we would be a way from fully funding the Southshore Community Center operating,
maintenance and capital needs. We will need $58,000 each year to keep the building afloat. The
combined income from rentals and the cities would be $43,000.
Debt Service
One component of the equation is often overlooked because several of the cities, including
Deephaven, paid their share of the construction costs up front. Excelsior, on the other hand, has
been paying close to $5,000 each year - the past few years - toward the debt service for the initial
construction of the Southshore Community Center. Our fmal payment on that debt will be made
May 30, 2008.
Memo, Funding Southshore Community Center
June 8, 2007
Page 3
rfthe rate Excelsior has been paying is extended to all of the cities - assuming Excelsior has been
paying 14.6% of the construction cost - the annual commitment, with interest, from the five cities
would be $35,000.
Given the complicated fmancia1 picture and the history of funding the building, building
maintenance, SCS, and the capital needs, r think it is premature to endorse any of the current
proposals being circulated. When the issues surfaced last fall, the cities agreed that a committee
of City Administrators/Managers would convene to identifY the issues and alternatives for the City
Councils to consider. Because of the obvious policy and political issues involved in the funding
issues, that group recommend that at least one elected official from each city participate in the
review ofthe funding alternatives. That committee has not completed that work.
Some of the issues that have surfaced in the discussions to date have been:
1. Whether and to what extend the cities should relieve the Friends of their obligation to pay for
all ofthe costs of the building.
2. Who should have the responsibility for the capital maintenance/replacement plan, how should
we fund it and over what time frame?
3. Should the cities continue to have a role in fmancing the programs and services that have been
provided and/or managed by SCS?
4. What should the role of the Friends be in defining and managing the programs and services
provided by SCS? Should alternative models for providing and managing these services be
explored?
5. What should the role of the Senior Advisory Board be? They have been the group advising
SCS on services and programs - and have also raised the $5,000 donated to SCS each year?
6. Who/what organization should perform facility rental services? SCS helped with this function
until recently. The Friends have managed it since.
7. How likely is it that rental income can be increased to and maintained at $40,000 per year?
8. The Center was intended to be more than a senior services center. It is the Southshore
Community Center. What efforts should be made to increase the use of the facility by groups
besides those now serving senior citizens?
9. The Friends also focused primarily on senior services. Should their role be expanded to
include services to a wider community? Are they willing to take on a wider role?
10. Should the Friends role shift toward providing services and programs for senior citizens or
should they continue to have the primary responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the
Community Center?
11. Are the resources now committed to SCS and debt service - when combined with the rental
income and available grants and fund-raising - adequate to continue providing for the operation,
maintenance and capital needs of the Southshore Community Center as well as the services
provided by SCS?
12. Should the cities continue to support and/or subsidize recreational, social and other services
for senior citizens?