091597 CC WS AgP
".....'.
, v
,
itt
f
r
:.In
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1997
5755 COUNTRY CL$lU).M)t
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
TO . BEGIN IMMEDIATELY'
FOLLOWING .
INFORMATIONAL'SUSION
(approx. 8:30p.m.)
AGENDA
1 . CONVENE WORK SESSION
A. Roll Call
B. Review Agenda
2 . TO BEGIN REVIEW OF 1998-2002 CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT' PROGRAM; TO REVIEW 1\ND DISCl.1SS
STAFF INPUT TO THE COMMUNICATIONS COMMlSSlON
ON RENEG(!)TIATION OF THE TRIAX CABLE SYSTEl\I;
AND GENERAL TRANSPORTATION ISSUES
3. ADJOURN
.
.
To:
From:
Date:
Re:
Mayor and City Council
James C. Hurm, City Administrator
September 12, 1997
Proposed Five Year Capital Improvement Program
The proposed Capital Improvement Program for 1998 through 2002 is enclosed in the
attached three ring binder. It has been prepared in this format and with color coded
sections so that inserts and substitutions can easily be handled so that your document can
always be kept up to date. The one section which is not completed and therefore not in this
binder is streets (we have not been able to complete this section, but will do so shortly and
send it to you for insert).
It seems very likely that there will have to be a second work session on this document
because we will not get started until late Monday night. The intention is to go through each
of the sections one by one, reviewing the schedules and answering any questions. Please
feel free to call any time prior to the meeting with any questions.
.
.
MAYOR
Tom Dahlberg
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
COUNCIL
Kristi Stover
Jennifer McCarty
Jerry O'Neill
John Garfunkel
5755 COUNTRY CLUB. ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (612) 474-3236
FAX (612) 474-0128' www.state.net/shorewood . cityhall@shorewood.state.net
September 15, 1997
Jim Daniels, Administrator
Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission
540 Second Street
P.O. Box 473
Excelsior, MN 55331
Dear Jim:
In response to your memorandum dated August 25, we offer the following suggestions or
desires to be considered and discussed during your upcoming negotiations with Triax
Cablevision's regarding their contract:
1. Spectrum - We feel that connectivity should be provided between all governmental
buildings or locations: in Shorewood - City Hall, Community Center, Badger and
Freeman Parks concession stands, South Lake Police Department, Public Works
garage, all lift stations and water towers; in the Lake Minnetonka area - all government
buildings such as schools and libraries. This could be done via an ethernet connection.
2. Adequate ban width should be provided for phone systems to all governmental
buildings or locations.
3. Connection between all City Halls in the south Lake Minnetonka area, and even within
the Viacom service area, should be established.
4. A dedicated governmental channel for the south Lake Minnetonka area providing for
two way video capabilities at no less than 6 megahertz both ways. This should provide
for live broadcast. This could provide for more consistent broadcast times for Council
meetings, and perhaps the addition of Planning Commission meeting broadcasts.
5. Free extended basic cable access for all public buildings.
6. A high grade video camera for better cable broadcast at both the Shorewood Council
Chambers and the Southshore Senior Community Center.
7. When laying out the districts for the coax cable, keep in mind city boundaries so
designated channels can be utilized for broadcasting city specific information.
8. Provide for high speed internet connectivity via a cybermodem for all governmental
buildings and locations.
9. Interconnectivity to County and State agencies for transfer of data.
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
.
Jim Daniels, LMCC Administrator
September 11, 1997
Page 20f2
Last of all, the City would like to stress the importance of an intergovernmental channel.
We feel that the LMCC should be working with key governmental agencies (i.e. League of
MN Cities, Hennepin County, State of Minnesota) to prepare for future connectivity among
all governmental agencies within the State of Minnesota to provide for the sharing of
resources in an efficient and expedient manner. We fully support any efforts the LMCC
will take in realizing this State-wide goal.
Thank you for the opportunity to express our views on future expectations for us and other
governmental agencies within the coming years. Please keep these items in mind during
your negotiations with Triax Cablevision. We look forward to hearing of your progress
during this negotiation period.
Sincerely,
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
.
James C. Hurm,
City Administrator
.
.
City of Shore wood
Capital Improvement
Program
Consisting of a Capital Improvement Plan
and a Finance Plan for the Years
1998-2002
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION................................. .......... ..... ..Yellow
II. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN.......................... ..Yellow
Capital hnprovement Plan Elements:
Water....... ....... ... ...................................... .Blue
Streets.................................................... .. .Green
Funding Source Summary....................................... .Blue
Capital Improvement Budget..................................... .Blue
. IV. APPENDIX - Public Improvement Process......... .......... .White
1. INTRODUCTION
This Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a coordinated schedule of municipal
capital projects, improvements, and purchases for the years 1998 through 2002.
Furthermore, it is a Capital hnprovement Finance Plan. It identifies sources of revenue to
pay for the planned capital project improvements and purchases. There are two main parts
which are integrated into this program document: The Capital hnprovement Plan and the
Finance Plan.
The Capital Improvement Plan consists of several elements. The capital improvement
narrative explains each capital expenditure by function. The capital improvement project
schedule lists expenditures by year over the five year period. The Funding Source
Summary traces all expenditures and revenues in and out of each of the various funds, and
tracks fund balances during each capital improvement fiscal year. The section entitled
"Projects Not Assigned a Year" is a list of projects which have been identified but not
developed enough or attained a high enough priority to be scheduled at this time. Thefinal
schedule in this section is a summary of expenditures by funding source.
. The Finance Plan section is a summary of general fund appropriations for capital
projects and a summary of activity in the capital reserve fund over the five year period of
the CIP. Also included in this section is a sample Capital hnprovement Budget Resolution
which would have to be passed separately for the fIrst year of the program, 1998. It
budgets capital purchases and projects for the year.
The Capital hnprovement Program is an important element of the comprehensive planning
process. See Step 4: "plans, projects, programs" of the Comprehensive Planning Process
Chart on Page 2. It is the bridge between policy planning and. implementation. It is the
direction the City will take over the next five years and beyond in undertaking and
financing capital improvements consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. With this
Capital hnprovement Program, the City Council is integrating the City's physical needs
with financial resources.
.
It is important to recognize that needs, resources, and projections change over the years.
Therefore, it needs to be a fluid program, with review and update at least annually. It is
reviewed and updated based upon priorities established by the City Council each year. It is
a very important financial planning document as it projects the City's capital improvement
needs and identifies financial resources to meet those needs. It clearly identifies areas
where policies are lacking and where problems may arise in the future.
Each project which is identified in this program must be approved by the City Council
under normal processes. A typical project public improvement process is shown as a
separate Appendix.
II. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
This section of the Capital hnprovement Program explains proposed capital projects and
expenditures by function: water, streets, drainage, sanitary sewer, public facilities,
equipment, and parks. It consists of a project narrative, a project schedule, and a funding
source summary which traces the affect of the scheduled projects on the various funds in
the City.
ComtJrehensive
P./annfng Process
1
.2
3
.
4
5
Planning Tactics
Planning Inventory
Physical - Economic - Social
I = I=I~I~I~ 1;=.1
Policy Plan
inveriwry i:1oals and
analysis objectives
olanning and
aeveloomerrC
ooHc:e's olan
I I
Plans, Projects, Programs
1m p(ementatlon
.
.
WATER
In 1995, the City adopted an ordinance which specifies watermain assessment. and trunk ~ ~.
That ordinance was amended again in 1997, and will be significantly altered to refIect.t.he ~.~
directives of the City Council.
The City is currently considering a policy to respond to petitioners for water byundertakiugafe$sibility ;>
report which will take into consideration a "break even" analysis. Under this practice. a portionoftbe new
user's revenues over a fifteen year peri-od may be credited towards the amount of t.he assessment. One
hundred percent of all of the project costs will be assessed, with the minimum assessment being $5,000.
Petitions for the extension of watermain will require acknowledgment on the pe.tition by l00~t of all of
the affected parcel owners. Under rare circumstances, a petition which does not have l00~ of all
affected property owners petitioning for the project can be approved by the City Council. pro~"is a
four-fifths vote to proceed with the petition.
Over the last two years, watermain has been installed on Smithtown Road from the. SoutherlyCity~
to Country Club Road. This completed the interconnection of the Boulder Bridge WeU.~BadJet.l\lell. the
Minnewashta Water Tower, and the City of Victoria's water system.
Potential Watermain Projects:
The following questions should be discussed for the 1997-1998 time period:
. Should watermain be installed along Strawberry Lane if a street reconstruction <<paVement
reclamation project is to proceed?
. Should the Amesbury well system be interconnected to the southeastarea Watefsystern and
tower?
.
. If the Blegin development is pursued south of Vine Street on Manor R~ shoUld a shott
piece of watermain be extended along Manor Road to serve this subdivision?
.
.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Stormwater management can be broken down into two categories. The first category are
regional drainage issues which serve larger tributary areas (10 acres or more). The second
area is considered miscellaneous drainage maintenance projects which can serve a larger
area, but routinely are maintenance issues that have smaller tributary areas.
Re2ional Issues
Over the last five years capital improvement programs have listed two larger projects
which serve larger tributary areas. These are known as the Glen Road Drainage Project,
and the Grant Lorenz drainage project.
As originally planned, the first year of these projects. were to prepare feasibility studies,
obtain easements or direct. possession of the parcels necessary, and to complete the design
of the project. The actual construction of the project would occur the following year.
Glen Road. This project consists of developing ponds in the proximity of the
intersection of Glen Road and Manitou Road. A draft feasibility report has been prepared
as an update of the feasibility to reflect new changes in regional pond requirements, and to
account for additional funding sources that may be available.
Funding mechanisms for the Glen Road Drainage project were established in the updated
feasibility study in 1990. A special taxing district was set up for the tributary area of the
ponds which proposed to assess 70 percent of the project to. homeowners who are
tributary to the pond.
The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) has regulations which make certain
revenues available for projects which serve regional areas. Representatives from the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District are very.eager for the Glen Road Drainage.Project
to be constructed. . However, recent changes at the District may change the funding
possibilities by the District for such projects.
Any amount of financial participation by the. District may. offset a majority or entirety of
the funds that would have been collected by the special taxing district.
Grant-Lorenz. This project entails improvement to the drainage way north of Smith town
Road along Grant-Lorenz. Included is ditch cleaning, culvert replacement, and
realignment in some areas.
.
.
Stormwater Management Plan
New Legislative mandates. require that municipalities have approximately one year to
update their stormwater management plans in accordance with the .watershed district
regulations. A majority of the City of Shorewood lies within the. jurisdiction. of the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, with the remaining portion being part of the Riley
Purgatory Creek Watershed District.
It is estimated that a complete Stormwater management plan will cost the City of
Shorewood approximately $90,000, assuming the City. .particpates. in the Hennepin
County aerial flight scheduled in the Spring of 1998.
As part of the stormwater management plan, key ponding areas and drainage
improvements will be identified and re-prioritized. as major projects. The Glen Road
Project and the Grant Lorenz project are scheduled between the period of 1999 and the
year 2001. However, these may change in priority dependent upon the storm water study.
Proiect Schedule:
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Glen Road:
Easements $90,000
Construction $115.000
Grant-Lorenz:
Easements $5,000
Construction $65.000
Stormwater Plan
Aerial Mapping $35,000
Mana~ement Plan $55,000
Regional Pond per
Storm Plan
Easements $80,000
TOTAL $90,000 $90,000 $120,000 $65,000 $80,000
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Fund Balance, Jan. ..1 $244,000 $190,650 $280,799 $197,619 $175,909
Utility Fee Revenues $44,000 $44,000 $44,000 $44,000 $44,000
General Fund Contribution $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 SIO,OOO $10,000
Drainage District Revenue $0 $139,300 $0 SO $0
Maintenance Expenditures $(22,000) $(22,000) $(22,000) $(22,000) $(22.000)
Project Expenditures $(90,000) $(88,000) $(120,000) $(58,000) SO
Interest Income @ 5% $4,650 $6,849 $4,820 $4,290 $5,198
. Fund Balance, December 31 $190,650 S280,799 $197,619 S175,909 $21.3,107
The Storm Drainage Fund is established to finance maintenance of the City's storm sewer
. system, and to fund future drainage projects. Revenues are derived from a utility charge
to all properties within the City. The City anticipates that 50% of annual revenues will be
used to maintain the system, and 50% will be available for drainage projects. Annual
contributions from the General Fund and tax levies on. special drainage districts will
complete the funding requirements for drainage projects. The amounts shown for
drainage projects are as listed on the Storm Drainage Schedule.
The following page is a flowchart which explains funding for the Shorewood Stormwater
Management Program.
.
. .
The Shorewood Stormwater Management Program
Funding Outline
/;'un cling'
,Source:
.fi\\
Shorewood/Lake System \:...:./
Stormwater Management
UlllJty Fee-$3.75/Quarler
:j;20.000/Year
City Wld~
General Fund
Sixteen separal~
Watershed DiStricts
with Taxing Authority
:j;20,OOO/Year
20% of
Project Cost
10%of
Project Cost
10% of
Project Cost
Issue
/tcldress ed:
Stormwater Managemenl
Improvernenl Projects
Confined Within Separate
Watershed Districts
Stormwater System
Maintenance Projects
.........~.....N . A_ I 1L........--~......~,...~....~IInr~....,..r~~l'~.........,.- T. J...'qPlI1Wi........'...,'J'il.t-..Jv.,..~.......WIt
@ City-wiele utility dlstl1cl. Slmplejee sclw(/ule l)(tsecl partiallY on waleI' /'tIllO}):
Q!) Generalfund contribution to city-wiele drainage projects.
C0 Special taxing district cllarges based on value will be lev/eel on!y when a
project is done within lIlGt watershed district.
.. .-- "- .-.., ~-_..._~.~.._. '.. ... ....-. -. -'-'-.-., ....- . ......... -..-...- ._~ ._----..__...~_._.
.
.
MISCELLANEOUS MAINTENANCE PROJECTS
The major goal of the first few years of this capital program will be the implementation of
projects that are funded with the Storm Water Utility Fund. These projects are, by
definition, small in scope. No single project should be larger than $15,000, and it is
anticipated that they will average about $3,000.
The City sets aside $20,000 per year to fund miscellaneous projects to correct drainage
problems. Miscellaneous drainage projects are prioritized according to the outline or
ranking system listed below. Projects will be initiated and completed in rank of priority,
and then according to the date of the complaint.
CRITERIA FOR MINOR DRAINAGE PROJECTS
TO BE FUNDED BY STORMW A TER UTILITY
GENERAL -
Projects to be funded under this utility will include. only
those projects that are estimated to cost less than $15,000.
Projects will be completed in order of priority, as defined
below..and as categorized and dated .by the Public Works
Director. Where two (2) or more projects have the same
priority, the older of the projects will be completed first,
funding permitted. Total project spending per year will not
exceed $30,OOOorthe fund balance, whichever is smaller.
1)
PUBLIC SAFETY AND HEALTH
Primary attention will be paid to those projects that impact the public health or
safety. These projects would include ice problems on the road, erosion that is
causing a hazardous structural problem (i.e. undermining a road), or storm water
that is causing a significant health problem (such as flooding the sanitary system}.
2)
SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL IMPACT TO THE CITY
This category will include those projects that, while not endangering the public
health, will still have a negative impact on the residents as a whole. Projects in this
category include minor infrastructure replacement that cannot be funded cost
effectively by other means. Other potential . projects include. erosion causing
property damage and minor structure replacement.
.
.
3) PUBLIC NUISANCE
This category includes those projects that cannot be considered a substantial
hazard, are not likely to cause a financial loss to the City, but are a public nuisance.
These projects include standing water in the roadway,. unwanted flooding in public
parks, and minor erosion projects.
4) PRIVATE NUISANCE
Finally, those projects that are a nuisance to a single residence or small group of
residences that the City Council deems that the City has .someresponsibilitY to belp
correct. These projects include those instances where a large drainage area is
causing a problem to a small area, and the homeowner(s) is (are) willing to allow a
right-of-entry to City crews without cost.
.
.
.
MISCELLANEOUS MAINTENANCE
The following items are only excerpts taken from a list of drainage problems.
complaints to demonstrate prioritization of problems.
Priority 1. Public Safety and Health
. Waterford 4th Addition pond outflow structure
Priority 2. Substantial Financial Impact to City
. Johnson property outlet structure modifications
Priority 3. Public Nuisance
Priority 4. Private Nuisance
. Rear yard drainage problem at Brown residence along Harding Lane - (6192).
. Korin drainage problem, 6135 Cathcart Road - (10/95)
. Grove drainage problem, 5375 Howard's Point Road - (6/96)
.
.
SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM
The operation and maintenance of the sanitary sewer system is a. City responsibility necessary to protect the
public health. The existing system covers nearly all property within the City limits and includes varying sizes and
types of gravity sewer along with 18 lift stations to transport sewage where gravity flow is not possible.
The system can be divided into roughly two categories, the older, original portions constructed by the City. in the
early 1970's and the newer portions constructed as a part of relatively recent development.
As the older portions of the system are over 20 years old, recent expenditures have focused on the maintenance
and cleaning of the older gravity lines combined with the rehabilitation of lift stations (which is now completed).
Maintenance has consisted of flushing, televising, and sealing to prevent the inflow and infiltration (1&1) of clear
(ground and rain) water into the system. In 1994 a Comprehensive City-wide clear water inflow and infiltration
inspection program was completed. Rehabilitation of the lift. stations consisting primarily of conversion to
modem systems and the replacement of worn parts was completed in 1994.
Inflow and Infiltration (1&1) Control:
1&1 reduction is desirable from both an economic and environmental standpoint. Reducing the amount of clear
water in the sanitary system should reduce the charges levied by the Metropolitan Council Environmental
Services (MCES) and reduce the operating time of the lift stations. Data from the MCES and lift station run times
will be analyzed yearly to determine what, if any, benefit is being realized by the City. The economic worth of
the environmental issues involved is necessarily a matter of council policy.
In 1995 the MCES established a TaskForce to review its cost allocation methods. At the present time, the MCES
uses a single rate system which allocates its current operating expenses to the user communities on the basis of
the wastewater flow each community contributes. Some communities, particularly the core cities, have argued
that it is more costly to serve outlying communities and, therefore, those communities should be charged a higher
rate. To assist in investigating the current MCES rate structure, the Task Force established a technical advisory
committee, to which the Shorewood City Administrator was appointed.
At this time, there appears to be little support for changing the single rate cost allocation method now used by the
MCES. However, there does appear to be strong support for raising the portion of the debt service paid by SAC
charges thereby requiring an increase in the SAC rate. Increases in the SAC rate are likely. Since the SAC rate
charged by the MCES is uniform, and Shorewood has relatively few new connections each year, but is a "wet"
community, a SAC increase could be of some benefit to Shorewood because it would tend to reduce the growth
of sewer rates.
An important recommendation that the Technical Advisory Committee made to the Task Force deals with inflow
and infiltration (1&1) reduction. A study recently conducted indicates that the MCES could save $2 million per
year if all 1&1 in the sewer system were reduced to normal levels. The suggestion is for the MCES to allocate a
total of $1 million per year in the form $50,000 maximum loans to user communities for 1&1 reduction programs.
The communities would pay the loans back at the rate of $10,000 per year. However, if progress can be shown
toward reducing 1&1, the loans would be forgiven. The recommendation was adopted and Shorewood has
received two grants totaling $20,000.
The study being undertaken will identify an approach to investigating 1&1 in Shorewood's collection system,
including methods to quantify excessive 1&1 and an ongoing program to reduce excessive 1&1 where cost-
effective.
Sanitary Sewer System Extensions:
The existing trunk sewer system is adequate to serve the anticipated development over the next five years. Any
local extensions are anticipated to be paid for either through development or assessment at the time of petition.
"-- -'
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND OFFICE EQUIPMENT
..:
Plans must be, finalized on the disposition of the old buildings at Badger Park. f
needs to be built to house the Badger well. This should be completed in 1996.
Park Commission and Planning Commission have identified a parcel oflandon ~'1A~
which could be sold with the proceeds 'going to park improvements. The City Wou1di'eQJ:i.:~
a prorated share of sale proceeds. ' ',' ,
The City Hall Council Chambers needs improvement in aUdio and videoeqtti~:fot
presentations and the carpeting will need replacement in perhaps 3 years.. Tbeseim~,:are,
scheduled for 1998 through 2002. ' .' ,
Funds are set aside each year so that timely upgrades to computer systemscan.be made.~~ ,"
these funds are "set-aside" rather than "expended" each year, the setaside i,sshoWB at'~~ .
of the Funding Source Summary. The balance is shown as ~designated" 'for office~oo .'
the Chart. :' '
,~
Computer Improvements
. backup printer .
. modem connectivity
. interoffice connectivity
In order to realize these goals in 1997, aPC workstation running Windows 95 will ~",." '.',
implemented as the primary server, and the existing Apple server will continue to nmill.the.
background as a backup and may function as the primary mail server. Providing ford1i$PC,'
server will allow the remote access. Since all computers are running the samesuiteof~.
the interoffice connectivity will be Possible.
4
/---'"
un n~L:< ___a
.
.
EQUIPMENT
The Equipment Replacemel}:tSchedule, as laid out on the next page, i~ntifiesthef:Yeat'.,_,
each piece of equipment is likely to need replatetnent. The overall,put'pOSe of t~._(ih~le "
is to help us' identify the financial, 'resources that will be necessary to ~tr1~;;m:'
economical Public Works fleet wbiCh meets the City's ne~. It is important to" . '
that the replacement schedilleis typical for each piece of equipment~ It is the lZ'1t)I;'s
to replace vehicles when necessary, not just when scheduled. ,Ifavehicle~s'
reasonably be extended beyond when it is scheduled for replacement, it Willbe~<]fa\
vehicle has a record of costly repairs and an analysis indicates early~wiI'~
cost effective, the vehicle may be'moved up in the schedule. 'All such ~e Q~es"_.
done with City Council approval
')"- ,'~: -/:'.: - ,,'.
The schedule indicates that $113,224 should be set aside in 1998. Proje(:tionsshOWtbat~Cd~
fund balance is enough to cover equipment purchases as planned. '
Should the schedule result in a short term fund deficit, the City may ~,'~,.
equipment certificates, capital1easelpurchase agreements, orintemal borro~ng,to~;
the shortfall until fund balancte,S can increase again. / " '
UNIT ACO lIFE YRO
REPLC/018 2017 2018
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE IYIlSI
77 ROSCOE ROLLER 16 II
"87 TRAIL KING TRAILER 20 18,104
21 21
22 117 FORD 666 BACKHOE 15 21 174,423
118 BEUTHLING ROLLER 16 21 41,985
32
192,592
33 118 FORD L8000 DUMP 10 11
15 2C 61,630
35 '88 FORD 3910 TRACTOR
36 '88 MOBIL SWEEPER 10 IS
38 '90INGERSDLLlRAND AIR COMPRESSOR 15 2C
40 -SO JOHN DEERE AMT 622 IS
41 "90 TOPS TRAILER 20 2C
42 JACKSON TANDEM AXLE TRAIlER 20
44 "91 TORO GROUNDSMASTER 19
45 119 FORD WATER TRUCK 16 20
. 46 TENNA NT FLOOR SW EEPER 6192 10 20
47 "92 FORD F160 4X2 PICKUP 6192 19
48 "93 TORO GROUNDSMASTER W /BROOM 3193 20
49 "93 FORD F360.. FLA THED 4193 16 20
50 sPEED AWARENESS DISPlA Y 12193 10 20
61 TRAILER MOUNTED WATER PlJMP 3/116 20 201
62 '94 FORD F360 DUMP 7194 19!
42--48- WALK BEHIND MOWER 6196 16 20'
EDW AROS 5IDE-MOUNT FLAIL MOWER 4195 16 20'
53 "96 FORD F360 4X4 PICKUP W/PLOW 8195 2ot7,886
64 "96 FORD lNBOOO DUMP W /PLOW & SNDR 8196 10 20C
56 "96 FORD F360 4X4 PICKUP W /PLOW 8195 2ot6,813
66 '96 CAT 1T28F LOADER 6195 20 201
67 "95 TORO GROUNOSMASTER 4196 20C
96 FELLING EOUIP TRAIlER lODUBLEI 9196 20 20,6,764
96 140H CAT GRADER 6/96 20 20118,690
96 763 MELROE BOBCAT 6196 6 20017,821
96 SERECO SEWER JETTER 9196 20 201 60,235
97 SlCI 000 SNOWM08U 11196 8 200 18,003
. 98 FORD 8600 DUMP TRUCK 10197 10 200' 178,814
98 FORD 8600 DUMP TRUC~ 10197 10 200' 178,814
97 SANDPRO 6197 10 200: 19,904
99 M08lLE GENERATOR SET 1/20 20 2021
ANNUAL TOTALS 66,964 620,194 314,31'
~
1. INFlAnON ON EOUlPMENT COST seT AT 8% PER ANNUM
2, INTEIESTON CAPITAl FUND BAlANCE IS AT 5" PER ANNUM
3. REPlACEMENT COST IS AT 75" OF ACTUAl. AlLOIMNG FOR SAlVAGE VA
4. REPLACEMENT COST INCLUDES SALES TAX AT 6.50%
COSTIBASlS WAS seT IN 1991 FOfI AU. EQUIPMENT PURCHASED BEFOIE 1991
INFlA110N IS CALCUlATED FROM 1991 VAlUE. FOR EOUlf'MENT PURCHASED
THEIEAFTER INFlAnON IS CAlCUlATED FROM DATE OF AOUlSlnON.
.
.
PARKS &. TRAILS
PARKS
The Park Commission recommends the five-year Capital Improvement Program toilie City
Council for both parks and trails each year.
The Park Fund balance is estimated to be $124,318 at the end of 1997 with funds set aside
to compete the following projects:
Manor Park lights at west side of pond
Freeman Park picnic shelter and fountains
Project Narrative:
$8,500
35,000
Badger .Park:
1998 - $10,000 is set aside to extend the roof and concrete floor on the proposed new
Badger well building to serve as.a picnic shelter. An additional $10,000 is set aside
for recreational amenities to the west of the Badger well building to comp1imentthe
Senior Community Center. Improvements could include shuffle board, horseshoe
pits, etc.
1999 - $4,500 is budgeted for overlaying the tennis courts.
Cathcart Park:
1998 - $4,000 is budgeted for overlaying the tennis. courts.
2000 - $28,000 is budgeted to build a wanning house I picnic shelter south of the parking
lot near the trail. It will be similar to the Manor Park building. The City of
Chanhassen needs to work with us closely because the building will be in their city.
Silverwood Park:
2002 - $32,000 has been set aside for a picnic shelter I warming house. Southeast
Shorewood area neighborhoods need to work with. the Park Commission in
determining citizen interest in such a building well in advance of any expenditure of
funds.
Freeman Park:
1998 - $50,000 has been set aside as a loan to the Park.Foundation or sports organizations
to build a concession building I picnic. shelter in the softballl.soccer area.
$50,000 has been set aside to build two tennis courts. The Park Commission has
yet to make a final determination on the citizen interest in or location of the courts.
$10,000 is budgeted to realign and overlay the road through the park once the
deposition of the land to the east of the Little League fields is determined.
Manor Park:
No further improvements are planned.
.
.
Park Project Schedule:
The Park Capital Improvement Plan (PCIP) for 1998-2002 is summarized on these charts. The PCIP lists
projects planned for each year. Budget numbers are adjusted with an inflation factor and should be considered
the budget for the entire project including "soft costs" such as planning, engineering, project management, etc.
The Funding Source Summary - Park Capital Fund illustrates where funds will come from to pay for the
improvements scheduled on the PCIP. Note that the "projects/expenditure" line corresponds with the "total
expenses" line on the PCIP.
\
*
Approximately $3,000 is planned to be spent through 1998 on building planning.
.
.
SHOREWOOD PARK FOUNDATION:
For the following reasons, the City of Shorewood detennined that a separate, non-profit
corporation should be established for the general improvement of Shorewood's parks:
.
There is increasing pressure to reduce. the increase of property tax dollars for
park improvements.
.
A park improvement referendum was defeated in the Spring of 1993 which
means borrowing funds is not an option.
Federal and state funding for recreation continues to decrease.
There is increasing pressure formore and better facilities for organized sports at
Freeman Park.
.
.
.
Improvements likely funded from the "foundation" would clearly benefit those
who participate in organized sports. This would add to the general quality of
life for the entire Shorewood Community and open up the potential for more
residents and civic organizations to participate in recreational activities.
The following are the objectives of the Shorewood Park Foundation:
.
Add to the general quality of life for the entire Shorewood Community;
Allow for more residents and civic organizations to participate in recreational
activities;
.
Provide an opportunity to encourage donations to Shorewood's parks;
Serve as a vehicle for cooperation and coordination of human resources to
support, operate and approve Shorewood's park facilities;
Reduce the use of property. tax dollars for park related expenditures;
Raise and distribute funds for a portion of the cost of maintaining Shorewood's
parks, park capital improvement projects as listed in the City's Five Year Parks
Capital Improvement Program, and park improvement projects beyond the
scope of the five year program;
· Work with the City to apply for and provide matching and in-kind contributions
for various recreational grants; and
.
.
.
.
· Provide for an organized means to review, prioritize, recommend and undertake
park improvement projects.
.
.
TRAILS
In 1992 a Trail Plan was adopted by the City Council. That plan is now being reviewed
and revised under the direction of the Park Commission. The Commission will involve
citizens early and often in the review process. Plans derived "from the bottom up" are
much more likely to be implemented with the concurrence of the greatest number of
immediately affected residents.
The Trail Fund balance is estimated to be $ 125.460 on December 31.1997. It should
increase to $157.983 during 1998. No street improvement projects are planned which
would call for a trail. However, trails have been discussed in the past in several areas:
. Extend the trail on Vine Hill Road north to Covington Road then west to Silverwood
Park. An inquiry had also been received about extending the trail on Vine Hill e~
further north than Covington.
. Petitions both for and against a trail along Smithtown Road were received in 1996.
. There has been an inquiry about a trail along Enchanted Drive and possibly the Shady
Island perimeter.
. Inquiries have been received about a way to safely get from the Lake Virginia area to
the LRT (regional trail).
. An inquiry was received on working with Excelsior ona trail along Mill Street.
. The transportation supervisor for the Minnetonka School District has identified a
number of streets along which trails or road-side walkways are recommended.
There is clearly interest in trails but there are always problems in "retrofitting" trails in
already developed areas. This emphasizes the importance of working with area residents
from the initial stages in planning any trails.
At this time the only expenditure anticipated through.. 1998 is $6.000 for planning. Project
plans could result from this process which is expected to be completed in the spring of
1998.
~~i~~!
.. ".~''";~:' . :
'.
"
:2
~
~
lit
~
I:
>
en
-4
~~ ~
~ r
r ?
f r
.
r P.oisingtcn Koegler GItlup I.nc:.
";oo~mD.~I~)l'
.. -f toIil'l1W'l.Oolu...lofiMftou ~''';9 ~jl;r.;;~..JQ(..O
~~~)
....~~
... ...;}j;fi;":;-
I ,f-i''j/,
:'( 'f I
,/ J. I,
'" I. 11'1 {1.
".:.L r
1,"P.-:.,,,,. .
, ~..'.. "~..""
--.: 1 ',- (~~
.j' ..' '\". '. .~
'ic. .' \'\'
tiR)' \\\{'\: ..,., ,
"'\ '~
,'/ }... ,:) y
~: r---:r--,/;,:.2lD:.. I
"~ ~." / ,.j
. . <Jo-. 'f
::::
-
'-
"
f
i
! 9
~ f
I f
f i
~ i
. .
& .
t 1
. f
.
$
SlLVe.;;WOOO PARK
.
cay of ShorllWOOdo MlnrMsol'1
--... --~.:..-~~..
.
.
IJUllP '&
~
"I r 1 i!!
II i ilit
!~nh
I f lit
. i[ ~>>
j
.
;
:
:
"-
.....
"'7
.
~:
i1_.- -'-I
;1 . t
I . I - - f -. t
-:J ,L---=-~
.
- I
JCD
~ I
.
--
f.
/ '1
...
~
. v
a, i
:
l
!
I
--.....
,"'" .
<--:..~~~,..- -""-'
-"'.- ,
~-~..~,
,..- "... - .
..".,.- - ...-,-- ..
-- ;,...-- ",..-... .
,.- - _, I
.....,,--- .- - _...--~ - ,
4"'--;::'~"''''-'''
.. """,JIII*; _,,,,,,
....-",...... ....,.--....-
-- - ---
.,.,"" --
-; t ..-------' - ----....
.....- - ..--'
!e
I
.
:
.
i
.
I
!
i
n
3: J
OJ I
..
~ I
..
~ .'
;; .
::l
l' f '1 1
f.' ~ i !
t l'
Hoisington K~er Group Ine.
7300 MllG'O 'Ivd. ' SOlfC ~..5
~inneaooJi$. :'AN SS.lj9 . ~6t~!:!~.~~
CATHCART PARK
C;:y ,~fSl'lcrewo(ldo Mlnneso:a
1.'
. .
I .-
J
V
;
i
'~
.
I
, 1
.OOe
'..,
I
mm
DB
'...... ':.....--. . "'"",-",Qulf'_
.
.
I
!:
I
i
.-j
i
:;
.
..
j
.
.
1U IIfi I ~
Ui nil ~
Ii i' jllff
J'~I j}
..;} to!
'h 111
fr l,t i
I
..
~
1 .
I
,
i
J
~
!
!
~
.!
~
i .f
~a
~ ! '1 f
f 1 "I l'
,
i
~
.....
_,1"""'1
I I
'I
........1
/"
'"
3:
OJ
..
i
"0
i'
::l
HolsinlftOll Koecfer Group Ine.
7300 ~ ,,, . $.a n:
Min.....o'ls. MN J$4~9 . ~61::81$.'lCloro
MANOR PARK
c:rv ot ShonwoCld. M1nne~o:a
..........:_~.._.._.~Oot..u
.....
.=-
.-
,;
"
't":.!
m.
DII
".,0',.., .
....-:.' ..:.....
..' ;,..:
~,,:}i'
'. ..;.....
~. .ro_".:.,,"
.~t}~.~..~ .-
. '::';~;".~':'" .
:::.~:?-:
.
i
.
;
I
,
J
.
I
.
!
....') .
;,,' '-, )..:'
. ~.
." "~'(-'
.>.
('
. .~
'. '.' ..
",'
, ':"'l",": .
.~
.~..
.
~
}JilIlJl!
nJ ri.t ;;
nffi I "
Ji:,lJr .'
t~1 1.1
tfiM i"l
Ii t!.r
t ..
f~ IU I
I r
!e
f 1 f 1
i
.. .
:- -.... '. .'
\
"\
.'lIlt
~,
\
I'lCAO i
~
; ,,~
i ~
.
,
i
.
J
!
i
3: I
III i
...
i .
J
'":I .-
S
::
Hoisington Koegier Group Inc:.
7100 ~ 31~ . Suite S2j
.\Ainneaootis. "Pf S!4.J9 . ;.s1 :l.li5.~Q";'fj
BADGER PARK
::::" ot Sl'lcrewooc. Mlnne:so::i
mil
1111
. .-..---..... ........"'O"n..
.
---I
.,t:
...i.....
': to- ..
'.
;'.,
'f! "
I
. a
i .
l . i i
!!d~l
i
r
.f
k
II
~
'I
:i
f-
Ii
.:If.
SII
ElII.
l I
a.:=
. II
.' ...
_. -
~=$
...
iu
:.::
....:It
gai2
_of
'1.
=!tl
=....:z
..
III
:l]
ejJ
: ~
..
u.
...\.. ;.,.
~. )..1\~;\~
...; .. . ...;..;.i.....: .,.... IlitY
" i\\. . \"\'\
. .) ) \, j 'j)Il.
... ......~. ,,:/~ ~ .o...;._:"!#..:,;,.Jt
.~'-~.r~ll~ ~.._...: .::~!..t'~~~~~f).
I . .
.~.:. :-:;"..
\ci..~;
.# .......
no..
"
"
.1 ~
/'
. ,
I'
I,
I
.~~-;'.
~...
.::,'
~\\.\ .
. \, .
. "'\"~~". i'
't '\.:-<~,
....,\::..1.:\.:.
''/
I'; II
'W
. ~fl~
i lWM
.'
i.
f.".
.,/fJ~ ..'
;.~ ~;. 1./>.
) . '><...
'r.. .~.
"..'.
"", .
''1,.'''" "':"
~'\
~\. '.
'\, . ',.,
.'~'\'.:,
" .; '.:: ," .,~,~
. '" .,., , '. IL......
'.~i~. ".'. ,.' ''\.~
,;...':'....' J~''\
. ,. '( ;~::~"
., '(';"OO....~.;\ ..,.,.. '.
.!" . .\. '4..\
'''' 7"',,:\. ")",
",~ ~...':....."'U~. .:. . "'<".
. If:, ""s ' '"\\.
. I 0-..1 "\J . ...:.....
...., .'- '\ ,'.',
b;',\;.l '\. '.X; ...,. '., .:...,
'. ..~.~,'h~ ,
1,\'<)
"
UNSCHEDULED, POTENTIAL PROJECTS
The following projects have been identified as potential future projects which have been
discussed in general terms. At this time there is not enough information or need to assign a
year to these potential projects:
.
At some point in time the City may be interested in providing a satellite fIre
station in the western portion of the City.
Upgrade the storm water system from Church Road to Grant Lorenz, It may
be possible to upgrade this system when Strawberry Lane is reconstructed.
This should be investigated during the feasibility study of that project.
There is a serious erosion problem along a 200 foot section of the lakeside of
Timber Lane. A cost effective plan needs to be agreed upon so cost estimates
can be acquired and the project undertaken.
· The Public Works Director has identified a need to provide a portable generator
for a backup source of power to run wells and lift stations during a power
outage, The estimated cost is $130,000. Other options should be examined.
.
.
.
.
The basement level of City Hall, particularly the east side should eventually be
"finished" and made useable. Within five years, the property fIle area in the
upper level will be filled to capacity. Several offices and a meeting room could
be built downstairs to make more room upstairs for fIles and a copying I work
room.
.
The Funding Source Summary' chart below projects the property tax 'levy ./5>t .capital
improvements through 2002 and identifies the levy by type of improvement. "The "Funding
Source Summaries" in the various sections of this program are a major part of this F:iJ1ance'
Plan. Each functional area. summarized here is explained in 'detail in the funding source
summary .chart in each functional area.
Maintaining a reasonable Capital Reserve fund balance is an esseIitial etement.. in tht
financial stability of the City. It can be an important factor in maintaining and. improvmg.
our good bond rating. Such a reserve can serve as a sound financial resource. Jteanserve
as a depreciation fund for City Assets. In addition,. it can allow for short temi or ..inte.rim
.~ internal borrowing for projects' or equipment. This can reduce the cost of botiowing .by'
\j allowing for combined bond sales at the most advantageous time. -
The last portion of the Capital Finance Plan is a proposed 1998 Capital In)provenimt.
Budget. It adopts, as a budget, the projects identified in this document forthc'.year J998
and authorizes purch~s and p~liminary p~oject expenses up to an~ including a ~
study for those projects pending Council approval of appropriate. a~nts;This
budget needs to be adopted by the City Council in an action separate,from
acceptance of this plan.
III. CAPITAL FINANCE PLAN
;it.~J' -
~
The City recognizes the importance of maifitaining a reasonable funding revel for public
improvements, equipment, and depreciation of current City assets. Therefore.. this CIP
projects an increase of between 3.25% and 5.5% annually in general revenuesa1located for
capital improvements.
i
!
~
__.___~_~. ~___,- ....... ..' .!,. c.
. ,-,f-,,'
, ',"',',C,
. .t
.;.1
'~i.l
';:1
~;d
,,.':~'i
[.fl
::::..1
i1~
.
;ions
Citize-
'~~"-'~~!':""::"'''''';'''''''''.''''''-'''-':~;,N.~''''''
......~.,..~:"":<<<:---..
--'--='~'~li~~
i~
,':;:~.'~
l">,....
I~~:
jt:'
PrelinIhnprovernent
expiain redget;
design optionacy of petition:
Df feasibility report
;:q':""'.:~'~;""~'-;'--~~'<<~~:~~"",,~,,;~~,,~~~~,:,:~~::t.'-"':~~,,""":""'''i^'~ .
~.....:.~-".~.:.
........._:.:::.:.;:.v....:~~.::.:'!":'.},:,:
::~d
:':..:.,
::r;..'~
.0::"\
i'JI
"'.j
"id
,i::-!:~:~
Informatil~ .n..."'rlID. 0'
l '-"'" ;
explain design &
APPENDIX
r
k/i
r
<<->:::.
\1;';
Li,
11:'4
,
o::~,.,.,......':",~~:'S'""';<,........:-"""":'f$<....#.......,...."'.;.,;~~...."':,~#....~.:E
';::~.....""'....""c,...,'~,..,.,..,.,.......".,.-,;:"-Jroposed pro jec:.; [~..
~;!r) n. b" 'f"~r-;!tion of pians; k~i!;
, nl lic 'r--. vi'
:~'3 th ...ao-::-eement ;,~".,
j;C1 e prop = r~
1;,1
I
.
i;,:J
I
'::.:1
<.':1
.,H
....j
.. J
I
j
=~~:;: --1
~.
lA'
t-.-.:;
"
Lo..
I"'::':
r'~
J'"
=-~=--~:_...~!~~
~:.:":
....:.'.....,':,.,.'.'.:
",c._._,
tis
ize contract
.::::->>~:~><.:;~.~:"".~..,~:--:.~~...~. ...~."'-~;..,.........:~._-~...
..".~.._-~_.~~~',..:-,.:.~
At least one lettfmal hea..--ing on
before pro,sments
at least one update
';"""'.-'#.'~':":"!,,,,-."-' ..,,,.......,....... ~...,-~:~."'.;..
Final Assess] public hearing
(can be combinedmem roll
when fmal co~
(
i'
I '
I,'
. .
",.
f:'
r:,.