070907 CC WS AgPCITY OF SHOREWOOD
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
JULY 9, 2007
AGENDA
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
A. Roll Call
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6:00 P.M.
Mayor Lizee
Woodruff
Turgeon
Callies
Wellens
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
B. Review Agenda
CLARIFICATION OF PRO-RATED INSURANCE BENEFITS (Att. -Administrator's
memorandum)
ACTIVITY INDICATORS (Att. -Administrator's memorandum)
CIP -ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE PROJECTS (Att. -Administrator's memorandum)
OTHER
ADJOURN
C1TY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator
DATE: July 5, 2007
SUBJECT: Clarification of Interpretation of Eligibility for Insurance Benefits
A regular part-time employee would like to participate in the City's health insurance plan. The City's
policies regarding insurance eligibility are stated in the Employee Handbook approved in 2006.
Sections within the Handbook relating this matter are not entirely consistent.
In Section 1.05, "Part-time employees who work an average number of hours between 20 and
32 hours per week may be eligible to purchase from the City's health and life insurance
programs on a pro-rata basis of hours worked in comparison to forty (40) hours per week."
(Emphasis added.)
In Section 7.O1, Benefit Eligibility, "Benefit-eligible employees (a regular part-time employee
working a minimum of 20 hours per week but less than 32 hours per week) may participate in
the City's health and life insurance programs if they wish to do so at the employee 's own
cost." (Emphasis added.).
With the update of the policies in the Handbook, the intent was at a minimum to make insurance
available to employees who work at least half-time; prior City policy did not authorize this option.
With the policies in these two sections, it is clear that part-time employees would pay for insurance.
It is unclear whether the City should participate in the cost of providing health and life insurance for
these employees.
Participation by eligible part-time employees is voluntary, and an employee would need to decide
whether paying all of the. cost, or the cost after apro-rata amount paid by the City, would remain
affordable. The City currently pays up to $680/month for insurances. Under the pro-rata
interpretation, the City would pay $340 toward premiums fora 0.5-time employee, $408 toward a
0.6-time employee, etc. Currently, no regular part-time staff members (working between 20 and 32
hours) are participating in insurance benefits. Staff members working 32+ hours receive pro-rated
insurance contributions from the City, and pay the balance for their coverage.
City Council Direction: While this matter of interpretation has been brought up by one employee, it
is a matter that will have a bearing on any City employee in this 0.5- to 0.8-time status. The
Council's interpretation will fulfill the process in the Handbook (Sec. 3.09) to resolve this matter.
.m ~.~,
,F®~~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CITY ®F
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator ~!~'
DATE: July 5, 2007
SUBJECT: Activity Indicators in Budget
One of the medium-priority goals/priorities for 2007 is to identify relevant and meaningful activity
indicators for the 2008 budget. Discussion of this topic was scheduled for a work session on July 9.
History: In 1997, the Legislature enacted a Local Performance Aid program. It was funded by
withholding $1/capita from a local government's homestead credit aid. The local government was
refunded this amount by showing that it had instituted some way of indicating performance in its
budget. The state program was very general in what could be done to qualify in terms of
performance indicators. By 2000, the Legislature abandoned the program. Cities having received
local performance aid were grandfathered at $1/capita to the Local Government Aid (LGA) program.
This grandfather went away for Shorewood when LGA was reformed in 2003, and Shorewood no
longer received any LGA.
Shorewood began including activity indicators in 1992 and these subsequently complied with the
Local Performance Aid program. Shorewood was also going through a period of growth in the late
1980s and early 1990s where there were dramatic changes annually in the volume of business the
City was transacting on all levels. The indicators selected at the time were to give an idea of the level
of activity performed, or the amount of things that needed to be addressed, within a program
(dept/division) budget. Shorewood is now virtually fully developed, so there has been little change in
the indicators from year to year.
The Right Indicators of Activity?: The key questions with performance indicators are whether they
are reporting the right things, and how useful are they. It is inefficient to collect data that have little
bearing or are of little use in making decisions about allocating resources. There are many areas of
the City's operations where activity levels are not cost drivers; rather, the City has a responsibility to
provide the service (e.g., animal control). The program is provided at whatever is the unit cost; if
fewer staff resources are used on a particular program or activity in a particular year, they are applied
in another area, and the overall cost of doing the City's many businesses remains the same.
~'
~®«O PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Activity Indicators in Budget
July 9, 2007, City Council Work Session
Page 2
It is good to have information about what is being accomplished. It is a common practice, if this is
addressed in an annual budget, to do so in narrative form (such as a budget transmittal
memorandum), or in a separate statistical section. In providing this information, it is also better to
have accurate data or estimates; in their absence, it is better to report nothing instead of something
that may be misleading.
In the 2007 adopted budget book, the presentation of such statistical data was changed. They showed
the information on the breadth of responsibility (e.g., acres of parks and number of athletic facilities;
miles of streets and of streets we plow), estimates based on historic experience (e.g., tons of salt &
sand used, number of fire & rescue calls in Shorewood), or range of effort expected (e.g., number of
new home permits, average inspections per permit based on type). In budget books of other cities
reviewed by staff, they most commonly related how much of something needed to be looked after
(e.g., number of parks, number of land parcels), or what was a "normal" level of activity (e.g., a
range of the number of participants in recreation programs).
Performance Measurement: This topic is one that has been coming into vogue in the city
management and finance professions. It is designed to identify how well things are done (and to
provide a basis for benchmarking with other organizations). As it relies on data-gathering without an
infinite amount of staff resources to do it, selecting meaningful things to measure is important.
An even higher level of performance measurement is effectiveness measurement. Whether an
increase or decrease in funding has any effect on say, reported crimes or the percentage of streets
remaining in poor condition, would be evaluated. By contrast, activity indicators would generally
show the amounts of things (e.g., miles of roadway; number of financial transactions) that the City is
responsible to address.
Choosing or Refining Indicators for Shorewood: The revisions made for the 2007 budget book
provide more believable data. In prior years, the data shown were not consistently updated, and with
the data as presented it was unclear whether they reported actual or estimated past experience. Most
of the activities of the City, in terms of the number of things to look after and respond to, or the
historical range of numbers for an activity, are relatively static.
I have requested the department directors to identify activities where the numbers of things done, or
per unit costs, truly are drivers of whether more or less financial or staff resources are warranted.
This is different from needing resources available to respond to requests for service (e.g., number of
zoning applications or animal complaints) or what we need to be ready to be repair (e.g., number of
fire hydrants), regardless of how much activity may occur during the year. Indicators identified for
Public Works and Engineering are attached as an example.
For example, we have had static levels of funding for sealcoating streets for several years (although
Council expects to increase this amount in 2008). The useful thing to track is how many miles of
streets are sealcoated each year, and whether continuing that level of outlay is able to get us ahead or
puts us behind of the x-year schedule to maintain them properly. It is valuable in terms of choosing
what and how much to fund.
This type of approach focuses more attention on activities with variable costs and outputs.
Service Indicators for City Engineer and Public Worlcs
Budget 101-43050 City Engineer
1. Number of drainage complaints taken
2. Number of building permit and or grading plan reviews
3. Number of private development projects
4. Number of Public Improvement Projects
Budget 101-43010 Public Works Service
1. Number of Public Improvement Projects
2. Number of utility permits reviewed
3. Number of concern complaint calls taken
4. Number of Vehicle Repairs
Budget 101-43100 Street and Roadways
1. Miles of roadway patched
2. Miles of roadway sealcoated
3. Miles of roadway overlaid
4. Manhole and/or drainage structure surface repairs
Budget 101-43125 Snow and Ice Removal
1. Frequency of snowfall events
2. Inches removed
3. Lane miles plowed
4. Number of Emergency Cali outs
Budget 101-43160 Traffic control and Street Lighting
1. Number of signs replaced
2. Number of signal lights replaced
Budget 101-43200 Sanitation /Waste Removal /Weeds
1. Miles of roadways sprayed
2. Number of property cleanups performed
3. Number of weed inspections and follow up
Budget 101-43250 Tree Maintenance
1. Number of trees removed
2. Number of trees inspected
3. Number of Emergency Call outs
Budget 101-45200 Parks and Recreation
1. Parks maintained
2. Acres maintained
3. Number of incidents of vandalism and repair
Budget 601-49400 Water Department
1. Number of accounts
2. Number of installation inspections performed
3. Number of Gopher One locations performed
4. Number of service repairs performed
5. Number of watermain breaks
6. Number of complaints/concerns
7. Number of Emergency Callouts
Budget 611-4945.0 Sanitary Sewer Fund
1. Number of accounts
2. Number of installation inspections performed
3. Number of Gopher One locations performed
4. Number of service repairs performed
5. Number of sanitary sewer breaks or repairs
6. Feet of sanitary sewer cleaned
7. Number ofcomplaints/concerns
8. Number of Emergency callouts
Budget 621-49550 Recycling fund
1. Number of accounts
Budget 631-49600 Stormwater Fund
1. Number of structures reviewed for NPDES documentation
2. Repairs to system performed
3. Number of complaints or concerns
CITY O~
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236
FAX (952} 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator
DATE: July 5, 2007
SUBJECT: Financing for Local Street Reconstruction and Stormwater Management Funds
in Draft 2007-2011 CIP
At the June 25 work session, the Council reviewed a schedule of improvements for reconstructing the
worst-rated local streets, stormwater improvements associated with those street projects, and other
priority stormwater system improvements. The schedule was designed to accomplish them over a
six-year period (2008-2013). In both the Local Street Reconstruction Fund and the Stormwater
Management Fund, deficits would be incurred if current levels of funding were continued.
Local Street Reconstruction Fund: Council preferred that $100,000 be added annually to the City's
sealcoat and street overlay programs, with the funds .for 2008 to come from a transfer from the
balance in the General Fund. The schedule has been revised to show that increased level of transfer
in the years beyond 2008. The figure for sealcoating is an estimate to return to a six-year cycle for
City streets. With the balance placed in street overlays, between 0.5 and 1.0 miles of streets can be
done per year.
Staff has related that capital improvement bonding (sometimes referred to as roadway bonds) are
available to the City for funding projects listed in the Local Street Reconstruction Fund within the
CIP. Bond proceeds may be used for projects shown in a CIP. The issuance of bonds are subject to a
"reverse referendum" process, in which issuance of the bonds may be put to a referendum if a
sufficient number of residents petition to do so within 30 days of a formal statement of intent to issue
bonds by the Council.
Northland Securities, Inc., has prepared figures to illustrate various impacts of this type of bond
financing. Typically, bonds are issued for projects planned over athree-year period, as bond
proceeds must be spent during that time or be subject to arbitrage penalties. The tables show two 15-
year issues with a debt structure that has level payments in years 4 through 18. The impact of $2
million issued in 2008 would be $189,000 (an increase of about 3.8% in the tax levy); with another
$2 million issued in 2011, the annual debt payment would rise to $444,000. Throughout the life of
the issues, average tax increase on the median value homestead would be $76/year.
It would also be possible to levy for, or increase the transfer from the General Fund to cover the
projected $155,000 deficit in the Fund by year-end 2008, and issue bonds for projects starting in
2009. For purposes of illustration, the bond schedule of payments would be very similar starting in
2009 rather than 2008.
.'
j®«! PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Financing for Local Streets &Stormwater Management
in Draft 2007-2011 CIP
July 9, 2007, City Council Work Session
Page 2
Council direction on financing is timely at this stage of finalizing the CIP and preparing the 2008
operating budget. The Amlee/Manitou/Glen project is scheduled in 2008 and is projected to result in
a deficit in the Fund. If bonds are the chosen method of financing, they would need to be issued in
2008; a bond payment would not be needed until 2009. If use of monies from the General Fund is
preferred, the amount would need to be included in the 2008 budget.
Stormwater Management Fund: Projects in the six-year schedule show deficits in this Fund starting
in 2008. In order to cover the $1.1 million in deficits accumulated through year-end 2013, the Fund
would need $175,000 annually beginning in 2008. For 2007, the Council increased the residential
rate by $4/month, which yields approximately $100,000. Consequently, the rate would need to be
increased an additional $7/month (=$21/quarter, or =$84/year). To get through the $240,000 deficits
projected through 2010, the rate would need to be increased $6/month for 2008, and could be
dropped $2/month from that level for 2009-10. However, the rates would then need to be increased
$20/month in 2011 to finance the Mary Lake improvement.
As with the Local Street Reconstruction Fund, Council direction on financing is necessary to
complete the CIP to prepare it for final approval.
O
N
O
Cn
O
U
v cO O ' o o I ( I a m !
o oi o 0 0 . ~ ~ o
N h ~ ! ~ t~ I
i M
) I
j ( M N N I
~ ~ _ _ I i ~
(
~p 69 EH Ff3 1 i EA M i
`~ I I - I I
L_ ~4 I
M o -
°oI ol o I I n rN- ~ I
o ~ of o o I ~ ~ o
N ~ 0 d. ~ i ~ ( ~ ~ I
a0 d'~
i _M ~ I I d; t° ~ i
~ N ~ d-J 64 i I ,
~' ~rj ( I
~ I
~ O ~ ~ O O ~ ! h O
~ ~ O O ( ! M M ~
O
N O H
M N ~ ' (
O V' I 0 N ~~
N
E!3
i
69
69
I
~ ~ Ef3
_ t3J
_~-
_ _
~ O O ~ M M
(
O O O O O
C
O O O ( O O ! ~ 0 i N ~ I
N
N
M
N
I _i
M
~
O
O
O ~ ~~ j C
.9 I (
~ ~
~p ~ 6
9 ~ Ef3 i 69 EA tf3 ( I
~ ~ i I ~
-- ~ 0 O~ ~O ~ 1 ~ O
0 I ~ O
C
O to O I O O t~ CO M W
N ( ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I
~ ~ m ~ I i
~ to rt I M M , 07 O i 1
~p El-? Ef3) ( Cfl FA 69 K3 Ct? I
~ I ~ ~ ~
O
O
O I
O
O
~
I
'~""
O
I ~
O Cn O O O O C7 Cfi I
N ip d'i M N 0O0 I ~ t~
L _
, 69 ~ ~ ~ i i ~ 64 ( 1i
I
N
O (
O
O
O
(
O _
O
O
O
O
O
O _ .- ~-
I ( L-
C3
O ~-1-
O
i
O i
OI
'
O
O
LO
j ~ ~ ~,? tt7
'
N
I ~ ~
M , !
( CCJ CO
~ ~ ~I i j ~ Cf>
! _
f 1
~ d3 E
3 69 ~ I .i-. ~
} 69 ~ 69'
- i :
~ Ef3
O O OI I O O -- ! I i O ~ i
O
N O O ! O
O O i i 0 O
d
~ V C
0 ~ I j CO t
f')
~
~ ~ ~
_
; Ef3 ER
_ (
- ~ ~ I
691 i
-{-
CU ;
' OI I Cp O O O <- .- N M 1
U
i
~I ~i O
N O
N N N ON ~
ON ~
N N ~ UI I
'
~ C
( ~ N
(
I Oi O (B ~ I ( ~ tII
O) ~ ~ ! i I ~ mi I
~ ~ ~ ( ' ( ;
I
I (n ~ O
LL! i ~ ~°
W C
W
--
-
I
..
. I O
~ r- t.p
~ V• _
N
f ~'
~ N
M! N
lf I
~
I p ~ t
~ O
0 O 0
!~ t C(> q' rt
i
j ~
W
1
O
O
ln
ln
l~
M
COj
O (
i
N
~
I cY 0
EA M:
EF3 M
69 ~
69 t!7
H3 Oi
i l- I
I
~ •-
i ~
6g
6Hi ~
Ef3
I
~ ~) ; I
_ i
i c d j c
I - u' ~ ( i ~ ~
-~
-
1
-- _
O
OI -_
M
O
!~
O
M
~f'I
Mf
M
Cn X
-
'~
~ N
O O O M N N N 0
- ~;
~ 0 ~ I ~
i O O
~ O:
~' M t!~ O O . I~ O N
~
~
' ( N ~~
(j~
CO
O M
N
M N
O O
O
~ O
~t M~
M ( In
~ i
(U I
m f 3 ~ 69 ~ I
I 64 E
J 69 69 H 1 ~ I
I
I Q ~ ( I ( ~ ( it
~ ICS i
i I ( inl
c
i c
I
T
0
~
O'
O
i
O (
i
A
~ i ~ .Q
.
~I ! O
~
L
1 I ~
~ ~
~I
~ I o ~ = ~ I _
. ~ ~
i U
U
L
O
N
O
U
~/j
O I
.
°- ~ cn O ~ m 3 ~ ~ ~ 0~ -6 'a te w.
o
~ is ~ o c O c a o ~, ~ E o
>+ i i N C C O ~ ~ N m ~. N U N
•r i(n Q Q Q 2 ~ Z ~ (n ~ W i Q S O
n j
O
O
N
t`
O
M
O
N
O
O
N
d
U
O
3
0
L
O
T
U
c
(U
m
m
m
c
m
m
3
E
cooo oo
m
N '
W O !
' ', ! I W '. I I
.
!. I !, I. ! I ', O ' ~ !
m ' r" ~
:, ! ',
r
~ ! ~
}
p tfJ ~ O
r'N
0 ' O ~
'
Olr O M '~,~
'.. N ',, !, I ', ', EiT l, Efl r
_
m r ~ ! ! ! ,
r
'
69 ! !
} - -_ --
! rn ~ v ~n
~.OO '. ~
' OO
GOO Gf7 N
h- r
O M O
N M O . .
~
' :.
O
O
!
r
_ _
! ~. '.
O
'.
p . '., !, !
64 N I N !. N !. ! ',.
!
m r ~ ! 69 : ~, ! !
!~
' M ~ ~
r N O
.
O:r O '. N,, N,M
N M O ', I ~ I ' t0 M !.
ER ER ! ~
- ___ _... ..-_. .
_ _ ~ ~ ~ N
r !: GOO !,
N O O d' N r M
0 ~ N N~
m ti !
(U 64 ER I 64
' EFT 69
~ ~. ' '.
N
~
~ ~ ~ '
cv
,N ~ ~ ! ', '
_ - --
O C
~ 0
0 6
~
r
00 O O 0 '
,
ONO lnN W CO N 7
N In O d" I tO ' In q0 Cij O
N 0
r r M ~ T ~
(0
N r '. 64 64 64 EH r N
O
0 '
010
0 O O'. I~ (A. !
O
N ..
'd' 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ N
~ '
(V EFT.: ,.
69 EFT
} ; '' ~ i ~ ', ','
.,. , ,
~
°
° ~ o
o,c
o '
0 ~ o
o^
N O)O O 00 '.
O O rt r1' ~
~- ',,, ':
_-
_..
_--. ._.- .
.. _ N ~
} ,EA ER ', ': ',
_
ER I
~ -
--
__.. _-_-.
U (A
r N M N O O)
0 0 r r r r 0 0 ~r X 0 0 0 tD
r 0~ 0 r r r 0
1 I
C X
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O I O O O O O OO
-
N N N N N N N N N: N N N N N N N N N N
N ~ to (U
~ _
, O C ~ ,...
~ .--
N W
O
y0 ~ U ! '. W !~, Z '', j ',.
M N O 00 M M OO O Lf')
N O LI') O COI F
M I~ M!O O ~O) CO ~ (O O t!') _M
I~ 00 N O N
N.~ M N.N O 0...~
~ "~
C
_ _
,
O O CO GO M ~
M ': t0 ~Y O ', lD N N ! t~ CO N V I~ (A CO O p
• in W O d' t~ ~' (O ti O 'ct ~ N I O O (P r M C() MOM
1 U
O
! h EA
~ W r !. d' O O 64'!, a0 ~f• V~ N N ,. M '~, M I S
'
'
' ~
O T ~T
, N HT EA,.. EA N ER,.. 64 E!T ffl
! l!
) to 64',, 69 64 EFJ Efl N
69 HT 64 fA EA
!
'. ,
C ~
'' O .p ',
',
', ', ',. '. ~
,
.
(0 ~
~I
~ I
C
I ~
° (0
,
(
i- I
O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N O O O O O O ,
__ U
~0 0
O0000000000100
N 0 0 0 O O O
~ I O!O'ICOOO
000000000:00!O,N
O M CO
+-; J
-O
,
M to Ch O I~ (A V O O '~I ~ N M ! t~7
~ ~ N rh CO '~~
NO W M ~ C
,
_ _
OOr
1~ H3~M('O O)N InMMV ~H-T
!
' m
'
'.
' (!T HT
! 69 ER NT Efl EF) E9 69
0] HT I CO V ff>. ER (A
'I (n 169 EfT ',, ',. (A,.,64 !,. ~, ', :.
',. : X
',
3 _
!U m m._
~
~ m
o •o m m 1 m m m m m m m m
'
,
,o Q o 010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.~
:' O
__ _
'
« I
', , ! ~
c';
m
m ~ ! c_m Z ~°
m~
5 m o''
~ c m w
o ~~
m
` I
I
~ o N m
a !
a
V a
o~
!I c
o Z' .~
CO O' L I ~p U m
p m
o
CJ
~O W~C7
m~fn
o
~1m~ ~
~
a~ ~ _c m
~ O
~,,
T 1
,
!
,,
,
! ~
c
~! N
N •p m y N O S N O O O lD 1 lfT O
O O W N
X
• O >I ~~ t61 O N m. m m U O~ (~ql~ M 00 ',
r!~ M,,~
JI
LO'
fA ~ W''CD
tO!CO N
GD
~ Z!~I
=' ~
', N ~
'!Q C O'
N ,
I
CO N
,
N
C4 >,Q J
~, ~
!
O
O
N
n
Preliminary
City of Shorewood, Mi»nesota
Street Reconstruction Program
DEBT SERVICE IMPACT SUMMARY
3.00
Net Levy Estimated Annual
Assessment Total Scheduled P& Required ~ Year Year Estimated Net Tax Estimated Debt Tax on $400,000
Date Revenue Revenues I 105% Certified Collected Capaicty * Service Tax Rate Home
!2/01/2008 - - - - 2007 2008 16,388,720 0.0000% $0
12/01/2009 - - 188,520 197,946 2008 2009 16,880,382 1.1726% $47
12/01/2010 - - 188,310 197,726 2009 2010 17,386,793 1.1372% $45
12/01/2011 - - 189,163 198,621 2010 2011 17,908,397 1.1091% $44
12/01/2012 - - 444,590 466,820 2011 2012 18,445,649 2.5308% $101
12/01/2013 - - 442,620 464,751 2012 2013 18,999,019 2.4462% $98
12/01/2014 - - 442,763 464,901 2013 2014 19,568,989 2.3757% $95
12/0!/2015 - - 442,383 464,502 2014 2015 20,156,059 2.3045% $92
12/01/2016 - - 441,455 463,528 2015 20th 20,760,741 2.2327% $89
12/01/2017 - - 444,978 467,226 2016 2017 21,383,563 2.1850% $87
12/01/2018 - - 442,733 464,869 2017 2018 22,025,070 2.1106% $84
!2/01/2019 - - 439,915 461,911 2018 2019 22,685,822 2.0361% $81
12/01/2020 - - 441,5(5 463,591 2019 2020 23,366,396 (.9840% $79
12/01/2021 - - 442,308 464,423 2020 2021 24,067,388 (.9297% $77
12/01/2022 - - 442,353 464,470 2021 2022 24,789,410 1.8737% $75
12/01/2023 - - 44(,563 463,641 2022 2023 25,533,092 1.8158% $73
12/01/2024 - - 444,918 467,163 2023 2024 26,299,085 1.7763% $71
12/01/2025 - - 442,563 464,69! 2024 2025 27,088,058 1.7155% $69
12/01/2026 - - 444,338 466,554 2025 2026 27,900,699 1.6722% $67
To[al - - 7,206,983 7,567,332 Average = $76
* Based on the City's pay 2007 Net Tax Capacity $15,911,379 increased 3% annually.
Northlnud Securities btc.
PuGlic Finm~ce
7/3/p7
Page i
Preliminary
City of Shorewood, Minnesota
Street Reconstruction Program
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE DETAILS
DATE 2008 2011 Future Future TOTAL
Street Bonds Street Bonds Street Bonds Street Bonds
12/01/2008 0 0 0 0 0
12/01/2009 188,520 0 0 0 188,520
12/01/2010 188,310 0 0 0 188,310
12/01 /2011 189,163 0 0 0 189, 163
12/01/2012 189,763 254,828 0 0 444,590
12/01/2013 190,105 252,515 0 0 442,620
12/01/2014 185,185 257,578 0 0 442,763
12/01/2015 190,205 252,178 0 0 442,383
12/01/2016 189,745 251,710 0 0 441,455
12/01/2017 189,008 255,970 0 0 444,978
12/01/2018 187,988 254,745 0 0 442,733
12/0]/2019 186,680 253,235 0 0 439,915
12/01/2020 185,080 256,435 0 0 441,515
12/01/2021 188,183 254,125 0 0 442,308
12/01/2022 185,840 256,51.3 0 0 442,353
12/01/2023 188,190 253,373 0 0 441,563
12/01/2024 0 444,918 0 0 444,918
12/01/2025 0 442,563 0 0 442,563
12/01/2026 0 444,338 0 0 444,338
Total 2,821,962.50 4,385,020.00 - - 7,206,982.50
PAR AMOUNTS OF SELECTED ISSUES
2008 Improvement Bonds @ 4.35% .................................................. 2,000,000
201 I Improvement Bonds @ 4.40% .................................................. 2,000,000
TOTAL.......
4,000,000
Northland Securities Inc.
Public Finance
7/3/07
Page 2