Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/30/1994 TENTATIVE AGENDA ADJ.REG.SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA AUGUST 25, 1994 Location: City Hall, 129 Holmes Street South Mayor Gary Laurent presiding 1] Roll Call at 5 : 00 p.m. 2] Other business 3] Adjourn TENTATIVE AGENDA SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AUGUST 25, 1994 Location: City Hall, 129 Holmes Street South Mayor Gary Laurent presiding 1] Roll Call at 5 : 00 p.m. 2] Approval of Agenda 3] 1995 General Fund Budget 4] Budget: 5-Year CIP 5] Budget : 5-Year Capital Equipment List 6] Other Business 7] Adjourn at 7 : 00 p.m. Dennis R. Kraft City Administrator �y MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administr FROM: Paul Bilotta, Senior Planner ] DATE: August 30, 1994 RE: 1995-1999 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) INTRODUCTION: At the August 23, 1994 meeting, the Committee of the Whole tabled their review of the CIP in order to allow staff to bring back funding alternatives for the Sanitary Sewer Fund. BACKGROUND: The attached documents are intended to provide a general picture of various alternatives, however, for the sake of simplicity, a number of assumptions were made: 1. Accumulated depreciation does not increase. This will not be the case, however, the estimation of the value would be very involved, add little to the general understanding of the issue and vary with the timing and level of projected expenditures. 2. Interest earned and paid is kept at a constant 6%. 3. "Balance after Depreciation and Liability" includes the repayment of the $1 million debt principle even though it will be due after the 5-year period. Principle payments are not projected to begin in the 5-year period. 4. Fee increases due to growth are negligible due to the size of the rest of the City compared to growth in any given year. 5. "Street reconstructions cut in half" means the projected expenditure, as identified in the last draft of the CIP was cut in half. Actual impacts would vary slightly due to the size of the project being moved from year to year, but the overall impact would remain approximately the same. 6. Operations as a % of total revenue was provided due to the suggestion at the last meeting that this might be a figure to base a policy on. Pages 1-5 illustrate the Sanitary Sewer Fund. Pages 6-8 illustrate the Storm Sewer Fund. Pages 9 & 10 illustrate a comparison of neighboring community sanitary sewer rates at two different usage rates (5,000 gallons/month and 8,000 gallons/month). The 30% increase used on this page was on top of the already proposed 13% increase (which raised the rate to $1.42). DISCUSSION: There are an infinite number of alternatives for the City Council to choose from, so staff has attempted to provide a relatively wide range of alternatives to illustrate relative impacts of changes in expenditure, funding etc. The City Council should not view the 8 alternatives presented with this report as the only choices available. Page 1: This alternative represents the option that funds everything with annual increases and balances out the fund within 5 years. Pa4_2: This alternative represents the funding alternative presented at the August 23 meeting with no change in expenditures. The debt in 1995 ensures a positive cash balance in the fund, but does not result in a positive balance after depreciation and liability. Page 3: This alternative is the same as page 2 with the exception that there is no debt issued. At the end of 1997, there is a relatively severe cash balance problem. This option does not result in a positive balance after depreciation. Page 4: This alternative is a compromise between expenditures and fee increases. The initial fee increase is only 15% and the street reconstructions are cut in half. This option results in a negative cash balance at the end of 1997 and does not result in a positive balance after depreciation. Reducing street reconstructions in half was used for illustrative purposes and should not be viewed as a value that would not result in disinvestment. Page 5: This is the maximum proposed revenue, maximum debt and minimum expenditure option. A positive cash balance is maintained and the balance after Depreciation and Liability is within a relatively close range of balance. Page 6: This is the first storm drainage alternative where all balancing is the result of fee increases. 2 Page 7: This storm drainage alternative shows the impact of even annual increases and cutting street reconstruction expenditures in half. Page 8: This option applies a 30% increase in 1995 and also cuts street reconstructions in half. Pages 9 & 10: These pages illustrate a comparison of sanitary sewer rates within the area. The rates for the surrounding communities are the current year's rates. The $1.42 rate for Shakopee is the proposed rate for next year (with the 13% increase). The $1.85 rate for Shakopee is the $1.42 rate with a 30% increase (increase over current rate would be approximately 47%). Two SF flow levels were provided to show how the billing options vary with usage. At the 5,000 gallon per month level, Shakopee is roughly comparable to the other comparison communities with the $1.42 charge. At the 8,000 gallon per month level, the City is significantly below the comparison communities. This fee structure therefore has a bias towards larger users of the sanitary sewer system relative to the surrounding communities. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Provide policy direction to staff for setting funding and expenditure levels for the Sanitary Sewer Fund and Storm Drainage Fund so that the CIP may be completed. 2. Provide direction to staff to provide more information. RECOMMENDATION: At its July 7, 1994 meeting, the Shakopee Planning Commission reviewed the 1995 - 1999 Capital Improvement Program and recommended its approval. ACTION REQUESTED: Provide direction to staff on funding and expenditure levels for the Sanitary Sewer Fund and the Storm Drainage Fund so that the CIP can be completed. 3 0, 0 N 0 N "I' 0 0 0 CO 0 CO U o O (() r 0 CO 00 0 C EH N 64 C) O( O r. (o co O C et O C CO '.ctco" O Co co" 0C CD O N 00 CO ER N CO M 0 63 CD In co o o CO CO 0 N tR N r Z.; E9 69 r 44 69 69 64 6R N0 CO O CO CO 0 0 (o O r CO o O CO to 0 CO "Zr O 64 a) 64 0 0) v- 0 (O N 0 a) 0 C CO CO r N CO- 0 CO00 O Co O "c2' CO N 0 CO c (C) CO N 64 N r 69 ER 69 64 69 ER hCON 0 00 0 O O N 0 N r Zig O a) C) 0 CO N 064 0) 64 O) 0 'ct CO a) 0 CO N O CO r CO O (Oo - C N co" C co" CO 69 CO a) 64 N r CO N M M r 69 N r r64 69 6R 69 69 64 N0 1� 0 N. 0 0 0 M O (t) N o O CO 00 69 CO (O 0 64 O) 64 CO a) VI co r 0 (O O V) r taO_669 N N 0 co CO M ~ 64 64 69. r r r r 69 z.•.; 9 69 64 0, 01410 (o O O O u'f o o (o 0 (o CA co N49- co to O 64 CO 64 u) CO in a) 0 r. r (o co co_ O a) CN- co a) r C) O a) (o co" co" a) O r ER (Nn N N0 O CO CO 01 01 CO 0 CO C1 r r r E9 r 64 -- 0 ER 69 69 1.- 0 N 0, 000 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 (o 0 0 >,� 0 0 069 0 (o 064 (c) 64 O (o O N N 0 -F,O (o (o 0 Q co (h N O co co co N V) CA M oo co- co- co-a) CO CD (C) (C N 6~9 CO CO CV r 0 (o N N 0 O 64 ~ r a) CDco -C 64 ER. 69 69 63 r r r CA G9 E9 69 Q) 0 Q) U c C C CO o y >, a) cC c CC (n = Or r r O CC •21 O O N a) C �, CA 7 a O (6 N h i 'Q CL N U c C) O. C1 o ) to N L c 'C U N c c a) cac 0 0 as c 0 Q D. y cc X Cit UC 2' C W nQr5 (C CacocC w CT c WN ° 0 CD Q) CL C N m > = a 0 Q C trQ c L R a) L a) 0 c_ aa) g ° U C a) U Cr .wCC x -c N CDU E 0 t4 •7y W C R V CL i CCC a2 U zi N co U cu ac Q > O O O C.Ld Cx a) CC C U CCC 0- c c L CO WZZ D ---61 . F- 0000 LU 0 0 m < 03 0 < OF- 0 ' V.. 0 N 0 0 0 N M to 0 a) CO 0 0 0 a) Nt 0 � 7CD.O N 'V000 CD 00 - a) O O 00 0 0 0 N O M to coco 609 N co co 669 0 o o co N co 0 N 69 69 69 64 00j M '1' O CO M 0 0 to 0 co o O co O -a' O O O co 'tt N , a) N O CO 0 0 0 O. N CO M (D (D O M o0 0 0 to to co- to O co O 0 -a- 'I' CD (D CO CO 64 N69 0 M 64 r N r49' r 69. 6} 64 69 • 'V' 0 0 0 O) 0 0 0 N 0 Zig O 0000 0 N OO Co N M N MN0 to N 00 `' N 0 X000 N 0 00 0 N to ..C2' N 609 0 0 0 0 CO tO CD 0 69 69 69 69 O 0tLo ccoo coo 00 CO N N \ N CD CO Co 0 0 N N N M a) N co- to O N 0 O N N A.' (D N a) N CO h. 69.N 0 69 In at V� r. 9• r T- v 69 69 6F} z-9- 69 69 0 Co 0 to 0 O 0 Co O O to a to U O 0 N 69 N to 0 0 N 0 to N N a) N CO.to r CD 0 0 to 0 N N (A 0 co O i co- C')O ' O 7 6 O o) N '.- a) to (o N M M (o a) 0. Co 69 ti N 4 69 6v9 O 0 a1 ✓ TA e- r- Ca 0 69 69 (!� L 0 ON 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 >.64 • 0 0 69 O co O to O co o Nt N U d o U) to CD U) M N O c0 00 to = (N M. to M CO (o tf) co-a) to CO cv 0 N N d M N N 0 a) N a) CD N 6C} M O U) N N 0 O N CD _ 69 69T T a) 'Cn > L 69 6170. 9 64 v 69 64 64 6v9 CO 5 r a) U R 71 ? C N C N C > U COCC 03 w a) a) co o E ( c . = O 0CC +.. GO T.- J_ N a M I . Q MS CZ C') N •U °d p N c cp v) .-. = , a) i O N LL V 0. vi) • N 0 c a) Q Q o C Q C 0 a) c L O a) [6 a) th d L. L Cn V y O G'C 7 U a) N O0 N Q. a) y "0 C o) c W : 13 N a c > a) = rn W a) �. d > -- c 2 0 co < iv as c c L CO C a) N CO > C C O L i — civ Li N 0 0 co X c H m v v Y • �►. L ` Y v) W y t a) a) C ca• 0 O H w 2 O C1 Lci. r2— a) x a) U ca U OB C1 d 2 Cl) r) 4 Z J F- F- 0000 W 0 0 m < m 0 OI- O r CO 0 0 'cl- 0 0 0 0 (") r' c C) O CO v0 O V. cO ') O C) r M O U) co-0 0 M N r cD (0 r 0 I- 00 O 0) 0 M N (D 00 69 N 0 M 0 49 V N r r6469. 6-4 (y r 1-. EA n.- EA EA E9 0 C) C) 0 00 M 0 0 0 0 V M o (h u) 0 C) V 0 EA to 69 to 0 0) 1- 0 O 0 0 O (0 (") y- C6 69. O 0 V '�t 1- M (0 669 0 ' 6N9 6 64 N4 69 EA EA 0 .yr N 0 (O O 0 0 M 0 I-- V c 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 EA N EA N t o CD r M r 0 V N 0 c') O CO. (Un ON') 0 00 0 0 N CO r (0 I�EA (V O O N Li, 6L 69 69- 9 r r r r 69 69 EA 69 COO '1t 0 N 0 0 0 00 0 (n N e O 0 U) 69 (O (0 069 C) EA N N V) N N d CO O r N O Cr). M M (O O U) C) to c(') ON- 69 N N 0 0 U, r r r r v r EA 69 69 479.. A 69 0 � 0 U) 0 LI) 0 0 0 (n 0 0 to to d O 0 N EA N (n 0 EA 1� EA (t0 N I- 0 U (,) (D (f) r CO 0 't I� N Cr) O CII (fin (00 1- coM et 00 L N L N (p EA 1,1 N ' 69 0 0 0) tZ w O r r r r R O 47,-). 9 43 E9 c- 0 C CD CV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 r o� a40, O O 69 0 (t) 043 t1) EA 0 LOC) 0 C c-4 O u.) (n CO V (n M 1� 0 tn- 0o O O (0 es N N V' co- co N 0 Nr N N 07 N to M O to N N 0 0 N -0 L EA 69 r r Ti; Cl' .? L 69 69 69 .i 69 E9 64 C w, c.. N 0 y C C H C > c') U C A C ` O o C el = = O I-. r 5 C H N M cis J ~ Q E � w. - y ., to r. = ` C y y uL t_.) .Q 4. N • N U co 0) Q C. p C N L 'II U a) c il2 C a) al 0 0 al Cl. N CD d 4) C a� C W Cl) 0) c > w .= C W �. CO >. O ~ cam 0 (a < (a ca c c L i 'C C a) H U x C X c co m ° E 0 c ca U w -0 t LL cp (`C N LLI «.l 8 15 .0 C = C L ` C as a R 0 07 C ~ C.. _ � x a) cc ca U Q Q c•- co 2 V) chZZ D Ei- 1— 0000 W 0 C) m < Cl 0 0E- g„) d � 0 C) •-t 0 0 0 Cn O N CO' o O C) UA co �t 0 O O 6R M 64 0 N UA r M to 0 C) 0 C U) C? (0 (0 co-co-O C) 00 O Uf) co- U) N d' "t- r- 0 U) 03 0 •C N N •ct N- CO. (O 64 N CO C) 0 64 UA N M r 64 r r r 64 64 64 6R 6R 6H 6R N r 0 0 r M 0 0 CO 0 r N o 0) cr 64 0 Nr 0 6R C) 64 C) 0 CO r st O V 0 0 M C? C? U) co N N CO N CI 64 N N r 6H 64 64 E4 N .6R 6R 6R 6- U) 00 0 0 C) 0 0 a (A o O co C) 0 0 N 0 64 C) 64 0 C) CO O 0 O C) N 0 N C) 'ct N ✓ -a O U) 00 0 c.f. CO co Lo co o UA 64 Nr... M 0 U) L ERr r r 64 64 6▪4 69 64 6R sT (D O O O 0 0 5 o to to c (7, co In 64 0 CO CO CO U)( O tCO il 64 (NO 64 0) C) co-co- U) O N N O 00 r tt) 64 U)) N NN NI- CO) CO CO r r 64 4/4 6R 64 64 i.e 6R ,El0 to 0 (A O O O (A co O 6t) N O0 CV 4:9• N 6A 064 N69- A N( co N C) 00 U) co (O u) CO N C) C) O co co; ci r N (NO (OO N M r N 0 CO CO L Q st 64 (A N C) 6R 0 C) 0) r 47; v r 6R (Q p L O 45 N T 0 0 0 ER 0 (OA 0 6R (A 64 0 U) 0 N N t CP O U) (A CO 67 M 0 CO CO 05 +-' = N C) to CrCO- co- (A co- co- O co (• U4 13 C Q N N V. Cr) N r N 0 C) N a) CD N 64 C.) O 6A64 404 N N 0 0 C) CD >' r r r 69 6R 64 6R (C > .0 C 6H 64 64 a) n L 0 w _/ a) N R w 7 • N C C O C Z:,'' ~' E O co 3 C (O = 0 r r 0 (4 O u0i a) cc1:3 ~ ¢ E (tt O 07 • N 3 °a .0 d) y N C r y i O cA 3 C) 'a t) N U C (1) Cl. Q c to N I.• -. -a b a) C_ L a) - al 0 0 (a a) 0 L N N a) d L �=+ G) a) cz L to Q. y 02 O a) C C E) c W . N O C > a) = N W QI cn >' C () N cc > C C cu E 0 ca < (~C Ct C C L i " 4' —' 0 Y x C N m v E () ci V Y L L CC c a) c o ns ai a) O C aL) (Na w a Jo 0 c v L L L 7 0-L d a) x a) as as o c4 0. 0. L co IA Lc) SF I-- 0000 w 0 0 ca < co 0 OI— CO 0 O) 1' 0 0 0 LO 0 VC) c C) st e- 0 CA CO 0 0 0 N ER a) c::e- LAO co vOOO CO N V CD e- e- O N CO O %4 O O U) c M CD N O CO coo V CD e- N - CO CO e- N e- CO 0 69 ER CO 0 N '_ 44 N e- N 64 ER ER ER 69 NCO CO 0 CD CO 0 0 CO 0 e- < c co C) O N 0 0 CO E9 r- C) CA Cn e- 0 - 0 00 0 N N N. CO C.5.C7 O CO O O NM L') .wt COO ER N O M N 609 a u) O CD In N ER CV 69 ER N 64 ER ER ER ER . e- o N000 0) o - N 00 CD 604 N • N VI N O to N 00 N V N N d st O CO CO co" O O M co" M to e- co CD 0 CA CO u) 0 lA CD N� - N 0 CO. 0.ER CO 0) U) e- N e- •- e- e-- ER 64 ER 64 64 NCO V O N O O O C'10 O t() N- a 000 E9 e- CO 00 ER N N V— N N C) CO1.A O N N. V Nt; O) r- CD ) 0 N N C) o ` N U • coo N co t- O C) M CO CO-et M CO-UI) C) C) C) C) U) CD N C) CO M N C) 69 O 69 r- N O O 69 T 69 E9 69 64 E9 CO 0 O CO C O O Off) CP Is-- 'I: 'I7 N d' co- N r C) CD M 0 O CD Nr M N r- 64 OD 69 49 69 EA 6 69 669 a- 0) O C) C) d) O O u) c1) o NONC)• CON O C (.0CC) co-M N Cr;LA. N M r- M 0 C4) 't CO N N U) M CD E9 CO 69 69 C!) CO 68 69 69 E9 E9 CD \o • CO i--' CO N co CO CC))_ N co CCOO N COOCMC) CO 1C) ▪ 69 Cl) 69 CC) 1- CD to 69 64 69 EA 64 69 . a) CC) N O CO CO In 0 C M st o 22 , U) � CO)_ NN N CO O L CO co0coScoOco co- CO Co CA EA.� ER C's 669 E9 0 CD cC) v 649 C CC g 0 0 O O O O M co O o) o _ o co O O O CA O C) CD N 0 O V O o 0 0 O ,-- C) O M N O M CO C1) O I C) CC) N C) M el' M CO C3) 0) UC) O N N r` '- 0 CO N 0 — '‘— C N C) 69 Cr) E9 V r— O CO 69 d 64 6969 EA '- 1- 1- co E9 E9 69 as a) L 3 c c O cc_ E rn r _ 0 C) C N CC N U c • Ca CP 0 U' Cl) CD d i. aC40) Cn 0 C C) O. 0. o U) L) a1 C V a) C M as a) 0 CC Cc) C W2 a) W 412 i Ca) rn > c 0 0 cC < CCC co Cl) Cas 0 C c aa)) �. a) 0 0_ ca a) 5 C) o O CC CL ` L W CO C c cLC V CC cu co a) a) C o > O vv)) - O CZ d X cc CCC 0 CCC fl- C- C to WZ D5 I— 00 W 0 mQ CO 0 0 < O C7 C') Co u') O O Co N c , CO• N 00) CO NN 441 (0 Cl 0 C'? O O CON CS)cp a, d'0 T- CO 64 C~ 0 to - CO 1-- Cn e- (4 E9 E9 E9 r. e- 64 69 CO ,• N coo. O 0 coo. N co co Co O 0)) O O Cr 0)ci c5 M.,-- co 69 N 69 N Nt N 63 69 E9 69 69. r. 69 \° I-- • e- et u7 O 0 CO CO C') o O st N O e- 0 N 0) • CO N Cr) u7 CI) Cr) N .4-- 41)-M 0) 0) I' N CO O u7 CU) 6 4 CO 604 604 N N E9 69 64 64 EH 0 C9 (7 CO Cl) C!) M 0) Co c • 0)i u ' CD CO CO CO N `7 u-) •,,:r O COoco- CO ON) N e- 3. N CC) CA u) C70) c i O 000 (0 C9 O 0 N 0) N N CO Cp N O CO cr. -. N e- I- N 0 C+) L CCN N •c- CO- N N O ,t.." r C9 604 609 CO N N ti til o EA 69 69 U E9 U) C CO 0 'C 0 0 0 0 00) 0 0) CO N O CoQ' O O O O O e- O. O CO. N 0 0 00 O sc.c 00 r- 0) U N 0) 2 g M e- 0) O N- N. N e- O CO N O 69 - CV L C7 C!? C7 69 d' e- e- 0 CO a) 69 69 69 69 64 co 0 d v C V w C .c ; C co G 0) C CQ c u0 V r- 0 ~O U) 01 co N U)'v = R CA �-. 7 '- C o CA y L (V o C� 7 C N C -)0 c„ N 0 4)C. \ C U ai C 0 N M O 0 cII CUC C e5 C = X = "" U •cfl -c CV co W m i C V y > C o C4 Q a) Cha C c 2 0 C i a) C Q co) CO v v O o <0 N X E C d t. N W y alU cc a y > r CA 0 0-Q. X CO CC) U (0 Q O1 C N LU U) > 1- 00 w 0 mQ m 0 0 < C) N td) It) O O N .— o O• op C O O C '- CMO N (O 'C N--- N = Cf) C) C) N CD CO- O CO- N COd Vt CO CO L Vi C) CD N C) CO cf 69 tt) ER r N CO 1- ER EI-} EH (R 69 EA EA 0 00 CO C) N IC) O N Cf) N o C) t- O O N 'V CO L.0 CO O O O CO O CO CO1- '4-- V- 1.11- C!7 CC) O CO CD V- O C) O O CO C) 'a' ER CI) EA N N CO CO EA EA ER 69 ER EA 0 0) CO N C) O N N CC) o ,, 'c• C) r— N O U) CO (D V CO O 1.11 Cn C) N M r- CO- (f) C) N . NN to cO Co co co rt N C T•" 'ct 69 V EA vt ER N CO ER EA 64 ER EA 0) O 00 M t) t1) cam) C) r` o O N C O CD N CO C) CD CD 'Crr- CO N N u) N N O C) C) CI) CD N CA N CO N '7 CD CO N Cr) — N • EA V ER V EA CO N- EA EA EA 69 69 'CB CC 0) O CD CD U) C() co co o P.. • O Cf) It) O N N N O N- C ▪ Vr �' CO N t— '4t N r.... 't ._ CO .. O CO CD CO M U) N r' o ✓ 69 V' 69 CD N O C Ct) EA 69 69- 69- - 69 EA C C CC m moo co O O O co co O• C) o 0 O O O O C) O O (D N O - O) cu - , 0 0 O T- co O co N O CO C) C c- CD U•) N C) COV COCOCr) w r^.a O N N N — O CO N O CO C yCO ER MEA 64 O CO CO a) L69 ,- _ ,--v ERC L O EA EA E9 Ca C yrU CO C C > CO ) C CtI 4.4 IX o C CQ 7 in U r •C O 0 ci) w`C 14 C a' .0 w Q C cr) co N U 3 T .,c u) i... 7 c- ch •• C >, C '- C o LL U (n y V a$ C Cl C1 o C C.) c c c C c C °� CIS CU R a)0 C CZ V y' -- Cf) X X U C6 -o C CII c (C o c W - a c > a) v) u..1• (v U a) > c C) 0 CC < CC Cts c c i C C Q = C o 0 L o 6- C4 C 0) N U CC) C C C o iz. N C 0 tC. l C. C. N CO D E F- 0 0 W 0 CO < m 0 0 Sanitary Sewer Rate Comparison (Surrounding Communities) Shakopee: Monthly Base Charge Cost per 1,000 gallons Estimated SF Monthly $4.00 $1.42 $11.10 Shakopee with 30% increase: Monthly Base Charge Cost per 1,000 gallons Estimated SF Monthly $4.00 $1.85 $13.25 Prior Lake: Monthly Base Charge Cost per 1,000 gallons Estimated SF Monthly $0.00 $2.30 $11.50 Chask : Monthly Base Charge Cost per 1,000 gallons Estimated SF Monthly $0.00 $2.22 $11.10 Savage (residential): Monthly Base Charge Cost per 1,000 gallons Estimated SF Monthly $2.80 (MWCC) + $1.60 $1.25 (MWCC) + $.50 (City) $13.15 (City) Savage (commercial): Monthly Base Charge Cost per 1,000 gallons Estimated SF Monthly $6.10 (MWCC) + $3.50 $1.25 (MWCC) + $.50 (City) Not applicable (City) (Assumes monthly SF water usage of 5,000 gallons) 9 Sanitary Sewer Rate Comparison (Surrounding Communities) Shakopee: Monthly Base Charge Cost per 1,000 gallons Estimated SF Monthly $4.00 $1.42 $15.36 Shakopee with 30% increase: Monthly Base Charge Cost per 1,000 gallons Estimated SF Monthly $4.00 $1.85 $18.80 Prior Lake: Monthly Base Charge Cost per 1,000 gallons Estimated SF Monthly $0.00 $2.30 $18.40 Chaska: Monthly Base Charge Cost per 1,000 gallons Estimated SF Monthly $0.00 $2.22 $17.76 Savage (residential): Monthly Base Charge Cost per 1,000 gallons Estimated SF Monthly $2.80 (MWCC) + $1.60 $1.25 (MWCC) + $.50 (City) $18.40 (City) Savage (commercial): Monthly Base Charge Cost per 1,000 gallons Estimated SF Monthly $6.10 (MWCC) + $3.50 $1.25 (MWCC) + $.50 (City) Not applicable (City) (Assumes monthly SF water usage of 8,000 gallons) 10 3 MEMO TO: Dennis Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Dave Hutton. Public Works Director SUBJECT: Street Sweeping Analysis (C")( DATE: July 8, 1994 The Public Works Department's requested Capital Equipment Budget contains 5120.000.00 in 1995 to purchase a new street sweeper. Our existing street sweeper has long exceeded its useful service life and continues to drain the City of maintenance costs. In short, it is costing the City more to maintain than it is worth. In preparation of the City Council discussions regarding capital equipment, I have completed an analysis of privatizing this operation. The City's Research Analyst provided valuable assistance in completing this analysis. Basically, we looked at three options: All City sweeping, all contract sweeping and a combination of City/contract sweeping. Attachment No. 1 is a summary of the costs associated with all three options. As indicted the most cost effective method is to utilize in-house City sweeping. The Metropolitan Council recently completed their own analysis of street sweeping in April, 1994. While the main thrust of their report was to identify best management practices for street sweeping, their report includes valuable information on other Cities operations. I have attached several excerpts from the Metropolitan Council report for your information. If you or the City Council desire to get a copy of the entire report, please contact me. It is interesting to note that on Page 47 of their report, their table indicates that 53 Cities in the Metro area do their own sweeping as compared to 30 that use contract sweeping and 11 that do a combination of in-house/contract sweeping. Their survey also indicates that contract sweeping is the most expensive. Their report identifies 66 best practices that can help make street sweeping more cost effective. I would like to point out that the Public Works Department currently uses approximately 20 of those practices and will look at applying any other practices that can be accomplished within our means. In summary. I recommend that the City continue to use in-house sweeping and to purchase a new sweeper for 1995. I also think that at some point it may be beneficial to use a combination of contractiCity sweeping to assist the department due to other workloads as the City grows. For instance, contract sweeping could definitely provide assistance during the heavy springifall sweepings. but the City sweeper could still provide the weekly sweeping necessary throughout the year. By doing this. the department could possibly delay any staff increases by using our time to provide additional services created by the growth of the City. Of course this option would still require the purchase of a new sweeper as the existing sweeper is no longer acceptable for even the weekly sweeping, due to high maintenance costs and excessive down time due to repairs needed. I will be on vacation and unable to attend the July 19th Committee of the Whole meeting, so if Council desires any additional information, please let me know. Thank you. DEH/pmp SWEEPER CITY OF SHAKOPEE ATTACHMENT 1 COST COMPARISON STREET SWEEPING CITY COST 3 YEAR CITY/ CONTRACT 1993 AVERAGE CONTRACT ONLY Personnel 24,801 20,652 10,326 0 Supplies/Service 14,359 14,986 1,665 0 Depr. on new sweeper 12,000 12,000 12,000 0 Contract Costs 81,592 91,783 Total 51,160 47,638 105,583 91,783 Miles swept yearly: Spring - All streets twice 180 Fall -All streets twice 180 Occasional sweeping 45 Total 405 Hours spent in 1993 sweeping: Hours for spring and fall sweeping 1,361 Hours for Occasional sweeping 170 Total hours 1,531 CITY CITY/ CONTRACT ONLY CONTRACT ONLY Total average cost to sweep all streets $47,638 $105,583 $91,783 per year ;Total average cost per mile of sweeping $117.62 S260.70 S226.63 per mile Average cost per hour of sweeping in 1993 $33.42 $59.95 $59.95 per hour 'AVERAGE COST PER MILE: City Only* City/Contract* Contract Only* $162.76 $159.89 $220.99 Figures from the "BEST PRACTICES: STREET SWEEPING Revised April 1994 I by the Metropolitan Council (these are considered too low by the study) Note: Maple Grove pays Allied Blacktop $59.95 per hour to sweep streets. Assumptions: 1. The only equipment needed to sweep streets is a sweeper © S120,000 2. The new sweeper will last for 10 years. 3. If we contract out sweeping there will be no reduction in Payroll but the hours would be charged to other programs. 4. A new sweeper will still be needed if we contract out spring and fall sweeping and do the rest ourselves. 5. It will take a contractor the same amount of time to sweep the streets as it took the city in 1993. 6. We will pay a contractor S59.95 per hour for all sweeping (same as Maple Grove). 7. City/Contract column assumes that we contract cut the SprThg & Fall s.veeping only. Best Practices . Street Sweeping Revised April 1994 ,`44 Metropolitan Council Adh•ocr^g:conal economic, sodcnil and issucs and solute:.s • SUMMARY How can local governments find better ways to provide services and cur costs when their reduced staffs can barely keep up with basic service needs? That was one question local governments asked the Metropolitan Council in a 1992 study on local government cooperation. In response, the Council has found a cost-effective way to assist cities in addressing that challenge. Here is a summary of findings from a small demonstration project that identifies a total of 66 "best practices" in street sweeping by public works departments in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. A best practice is defined as a variation from standard practice that improves quality or reduces costs or both. • Street sweeping costs vary widely throughout the region. The Council initially assumed the cost of sweeping a mile of street would vary among cities perhaps as much as 5 to 1. The findings show a much greater variation--in some cases, more than 10 to 1. • Cities vary in how they provide the service. Some cities do it all themselves. Others contract with a neighboring city or with their county. Many cities contract with private firms. A few contract their major spring sweeping with private firms and then use their own equipment and workers for the rest of the year. • Not all cities know how much their street sweeping actually costs them. Some cities keep detailed records. Others keep Iimited records, and a few do not separate street sweeping from their total street maintenance budget and thus are not aware of the separate costs. • Disposing of the sweepings is a growing issue with environmental concerns. Cities reported an average usage of 19 tons of ice-control sand per mile last winter. While it costs only S2 to S4 per ton to buy sand locally, it costs from S6 to Sli per ton to dispose of it in a landfill, not including hauling costs. As more cities run out of publicly owned space to dump sweepings, disposal costs will increase. Some cities are recycling their spring sweepings, which may become the most cost-effective approach in the future. • Many cities use more than a few of the 66 best practices identified, which suggests that cities can reduce program costs and increase the quality of street sweeping. • Most cities have the potential to cut costs or improve quality by adopting some of the best street- sweeping practices. The report compares costs between standard practices and several best practices for a small, medium and large city. While these cities are hypothetical, the comparisons show potential savings, some as high as 20 percent. • The region could save nearly Si million a year if these practices were implemented. This estimate is based upon reports from 102 communities in the region, who altogether spend approximately S7 million per year on street sweeping, a conservative estimate. • The Metropolitan Council encourages municipalities to adopt as many of these best practices as will fit their own street sweeping service. (The Council offers further assistance to municipalities by providing assistance to follow '.:p on cost savings from adopting best practices documented in this report. See the form on page of the Appendix labeled Program Assistance Request.) Page 1 • STREET SWEEPING: A QUICK OVERVIEW Street sweeping is a costly municipal service. In :art, that is because residents expect their cities to maintain safe road conditions in winter by spreading sand on streets and highways. Another part of the cost is that people expect to live in a clean environment. Municipalities in the seven-county metropolitan region use more than 173,000 tons of sand on city streets in the average year. If county roads and state and federal highways in the seven counties were included, the amount increases substantially. This material is by far the largest proportion of debris swept from streets and highways by municipalities. - Another part of these costs is the high initial cost to purchase a street-sweeping vehicle, equipment that can range from S80,000 to S125,000, depending on crake, model and equipment enhancements. Initially very costly. these machines also require high maintenance because of the dusty environment they work in. This environment creates havoc on moving parts and calls for daily maintenance from the operator or mechanic. Often, these machines experience part failures, which cause costly unscheduled maintenance and result in a critical piece of equipment being out of operation at key times. Another part of cost is that sweeping is a slow process. Packed sand, dirt and other winter debris is difficult to pick up in spring. Vacuum-type sweepers are less efficient than mechanical brush and broom sweepers working on these materials. A sweeper's speed depends on the amount of winter debris to be picked up and the resulting quality. Average gutter-line speeds for the first sweep in spring can be as slow as two or three miles per hour. Another cost is whether the city has a fall sweeping program to collect leaves for which residents are not responsible. The standard hopper of a typical sweeper, for example, an Elgin Pelican, is about 3.5 cubic yards. Sweeping certain streets in neighborhoods with mature trees could fill this hopper over a short distance and require numerous trucks with drivers to haul materials away. Added to this, the further away the debris has to be hauled, the higher the cost of the program. Most sweeping is limited to spring, summer and fall, when temperatures are above freezing. Municipalities sweep streets early in the spring because of sand on the streets and concern for citizen safety. Cities want to remove sand and other winter debris soon after the snow and ice have melted along the curb line and before the rains flush the debris into storm sewers and possibly clog them. Another reason is safety: loose sand on smooth streets can create a potentially dangerous condition for cars, bicyclists, motorcyclists and pedestrians. For the metropolitan area, the usual period for the spring sweep is roughly from March 1 to June 1. Many cities also have a major fall sweeping program to remove fallen leaves to prevent them from entering the storm sewer system and to reduce dangerous street conditions caused by wet leaves. Street maintenance personnel want to prevent as much sand and dirt as possible from entering the storm sewer system. Once in the sewers, sand and dirt must be removed at additional cost. But cleaning streets to remove unsafe sand, or cleaning it off before spring rains (or fire hydrant flushing) wash it into the storm sewers, also satisfies citizen interests for a safe and clean environment. Water quality is becoming more of an environmental issue and street sweeping is often seen as a means of improving it. Many officials interviewed stared they have been contacted by Iake improvement and other citizen groups concerned about water quality. In addition, some sweeper manufacturers and professional contract sweeper organizations are promoting sweeping. especially using vacuum models, as an answer to improving water quality'. However, there is an unresolved Page 5 debate over the impact of street sweeping on nonpoint water pollution, such as that from streets and storm sewers. A considerable amount of research is available on this debate=. In general, studies agree that sweeping does reduce amounts of larger debris and dirt, (in general 1/32 inch or greater) flowing into waterways. However, most of the more damaging chemicals, such as cadmium, lead, chromium, chlorides (including salt and calcium), phosphorus and nitrogen are too small to be picked up from street surfaces using standard mechanical sweepers. In fact, these studies show that sweeping a street usually loosens these materials, allowing subsequent rains to flush them into the storm sewer system. One rec ommenriarion is to limit the frequency of sweeping to a bare minimum. This research should be updated to determine whether technical improvements to sweeping equipment would justify more frequent sweeping to reduce the flow of these chemicals into waterways. Dust control is another reason for sweeping. This is a greater problem in warmer and dryer climaxes, such as Arizona, New Mexico and southern California. In these areas, streets are cleaned more frequently and municipal equipment pools will probably list more vacuum machines. Pate 6 Summary Averages for Selected Survey Questions or Other Data Sources Variable Method 1: Method 1' Method 2 Method 3 Method 4 Number of returns 53 51 8 30 111 City Size in square miles 12.4 10.7 12.2 9.2 124.8 1990 Population 23,365 16,917 2,191 5,018 34,346 Population density 2.256 2,125 769 946 1,602 Vehicles available' 17,915 11,792 1,735 3,513 25,342 Vehicle Density 1,513 1,453 586 662 1,158 Tons sand used 1991-92 2.353 1,522 248 973 3,427 Sand used/mile 19.7 19.7 17.8 18.5 20.1 Central city street miles 4.7 3.6 1.0 1.0 ( 2.6 Commercial street miles 10.1 5.2 1.0 3.2 15.3 Industrial street miles 118.1 3.8 2.0 3.0 10.7 Residential street miles 189.1 67.7 18.1 25.0 135.8 Total city street miles 124.8 78.3 19.1 28.5 169.1 Total miles swept annually 481.8 279.1 22.7 41.1 507.4 *Total costs reported $126,838 $42,985 $2,209 $6,799 $60,103 *Cost/mile of swept streets $172.30 SI62.76 $166.90 $220.99 $159.89 *Cost per capita S2.69 l 52.56 $1.07 $1.48 $1.74 * Note: It was found that the full costs of street sweeping programs were not reported by several municipalities, and others used estimates. Therefore, these cost figures are included only to provide the reader with a general understanding of the magnitude of this service. These cost figures are under-estimates of total costs and do not represent all municipalities in the Metropolitan Area. 1 Vehicles available: 1990 Census on number of vehicles available in households by municipality. 2 Methods: 1 is for those municipalities that do all their sweeping themselves. 2 is for municipalities that contract with a public entity, either county or another city. 3 is for municipalities that contract with private sweeping concerns. 4 is for municipalities that do some contract work and do some sweeping themselves. 3 Method 1: All do-it-yourself municipalities excluding Minneapolis and St. Paul (whose large budgets and expenditures skew averages for Method 1 municipalities.) Pare 47 A. City of Shakopee Equipment List August, 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 EQUIPMENT FUND Projected Fund Balance 1/1/95 $1,303,000 $ $ $ $ Rentals 324,000 329,000 334,000 339,000 344,000 Sale of Assets 8,000 5,000 8,000 5,000 8,000 Interest 71,600 80,700 52,800 51,200 66,600 Total Revenue 403,600 414,700 394,800 395,200 418,600 Expenditures per List 239,000 921,000 423,500 116,500 246,500 Excess (Deficiency) 164,600 (506,300) (28,700) 278,700 172,100 Balance Available $1,467,600 $961,300 $932,600 $1,211,300 $1,383,400 1 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Inspection Truck 13,000 Planning Automobile - Pooled 12,000 Police Marked Patrol Cars 19,000 39,000 40,000 20,500 21,000 Automobiles (unmarked) 12,000 13,000 13,500 13,000 13,500 Fire Truck - Pumper 260,000 260,000 Truck - Grass Rig 35,000 Truck - Telesquirt 350,000 Hover Craft 20,000 Engineering Truck 12,000 12,000 Street Single Axle Dump Truck/equip 70,000 78,000 80,000 1 Ton Pickup with Plow 20,000 Bobcat w/Attachments 48,000 Asphalt Roller 20,000 Steamer 35,000 Park Large Tractor Mower (ie Jake) 65,000 Tractor with Mower Attachment 18,000 Truck One Ton Dual Box/Hoist 28,000 Sewer Fund T.V. Truck 100,000 Storm Drainage Fund Street Sweeper 120,000 Ditch Mower 46,000 Side Broom Sweeper 40,000 239,000 921,000 423,500 116,500 246,500 Planning 1997: Administrative Car. To replace 1988 administrative car for pool use. Police 1995: Patrol Cars. In 1991, a patrol car replacement schedule was implemented based on estimates that vehicles operated 80 hours per week would accumulate approximately 97, 500 miles during three years of operation. In 1994, this schedule appeared to be working better than anticipated and it was decided to run the car purchased in 1991 for a fourth year. Funds to replace that vehicle are being requested for 1995. At this time, it appears feasible to run both of the patrol vehicles purchased in 1992 for a fourth year. Since its inception, the 1991 plan has resulted in the purchase of six fewer vehicles than the 5 year Equipment List in place at that time called for and has reduced estimated expenditures in this area by $90, 500. There is a down side. In the past two years, the cost of outfitting patrol vehicles to run longer has risen dramatically. The cost of modifying them to burn liquid propane instead of gasoline has gone from less than $800 to just over $2, 000. The cost of installing radios, emergency lights and other equipment has gone up a similar amount. These increases have caused the estimated cost of putting a new patrol car on the road to go up about $2 , 500. Unmarked Car. Prior to 1990, the Police Department purchased a used car each year to replace an administrative car and provide detectives with cars which were not too well known to be used effectively for investigative activity. The cars being replaced were turned over to other city departments. Since then, costs have been cut in this area by reducing purchases to two vehicles in five years. In 1995, funds are being requested to replace a 1989 Ford which should be cycled down to City Hall. This vehicle currently has just over 78, 000 on the odometer. 1996: Patrol Cars. Replace two patrol car purchased in 1992 . Unmarked Car. Replace 1987 Chevrolet. 1997 : Patrol Cars. Replace two patrol cars purchased in 1993 . 3 Unmarked Car. Replace 1988 Plymouth. 1998: Patrol Cars. Replace the patrol car purchased in 1994 . Unmarked Car. Replace 1989 Ford. 1999: Marked Patrol Vehicles. Replace the patrol car purchased in 1995. Unmarked Car. Replace 1990 Dodge. Building Inspection 1996: Truck. Compact pickup to replace current vehicle which is 1989 model pickup and will have an estimated 45, 000 miles on it by replacement time. At replacement time, the existing truck may be transferred to Public works. Fire 1995: Truck - Pumper. This is a replacement for the 1976 pumper. The 1976 General was removed from first line service in 1992 due to its age and condition. In 1996 the pumper will be 20 years old and condition will have to be degraded to replacement status. Truck - Grass Rig. Replace 1983 truck and tank/pump unit. Truck has seen heavy use and maintenance is expected to increase. Also the truck is very underpowered for its intended use. Truck - Telesquirt. This truck will be a cost effective addition to station number two because of its multi- function capability. it will provide high level water application for large incidents such as industrial and barn fires. Also hazardous material incidents without the cost of a second aerial apparatus. It will also serve as a triple combination pumping engine at the new station. 1997 : Truck - pumper. This is an addition to station 2 due to area growth and demand. 1999 : Hover Craft. This will replace our present unit that will be 15 years old. Improvements in hover craft design that are already available, will make the replacement unit more versatile, monviotrable and safer. Engineering 1996: Truck. This would replace the 1989 inspectors vehicle. It is anticipated that due to the mileage and maintenance costs , this vehicle will need 4 replacing by then. The Department will continue to monitor this situation annually and adjust the equipment list accordingly. 1999: Truck. See comments under 1996. This truck would also replace an existing truck. Street 1995: Single Axle Dump Truck with plow and sander. This would replace the 1982 Ford Dump Truck (Truck #102) which will go on standby. Based on the maintenance costs, this 10+ year old dump truck should be replaced. 1996: Bobcat with Attachments. This is for a large Bobcat (853) with attachments such as snowblower, grader, trailer, etc. The current bobcat purchased in 1990 is used extensively and is in high demand between the Street and Park divisions and a second bobcat may be needed for our operations as the City continues to grow. 1997: Single Axle Dump Truck with Equipment. This will replace the 1987 Ford Truck (Truck #107) which will be 10 years old at that time and probably reach the end of its useful service life at this point. Asphalt Roller. This is to replace the existing 1979 Vibropack Asphalt Roller, which is no longer cost effective to continue maintaining. 1998: Steamer. Currently our steamer boiler is used extensively in the winter and spring to thaw out storm sewers, catch basins, etc, to alleviate flooding. The current steamer is a 1965 Cleaver- Brooks steamer which should be replaced with a more modern, advanced, safer steamer. One Ton Pickup. This will replace the existing truck #110, which will be 10 years old at that time. 1999 : Single Axle Dump Truck with Equipment. This will replace the 1989 Ford Truck (#109) which will be 10 years old at that time and near the end of its useful service life. Park 1995: Tractor Mower. This would replace an existing Ford tractor (#131) which is too small to usefully serve the department. It is proposed to purchase a tractor of similar size that was purchased in 1994 for $11, 000 . 00 (John Deere) . It is requested to purchase 5 a pull behind mower attachment with this tractor. The Ford tractor would be traded in. 1996: Large Tractor Mower. Due to the increased growth of Shakopee and the additional parks being added as development occurs, it is anticipated that another large mower (i.e. Jacobsen) will be needed to keep up with the demand on a good, well maintained park system. 1998: One Ton Truck. This would replace P/U Truck #112, which will be 10 years old at that time. Sewer Fund 1999 : T.V. Truck. This would replace our current televising truck and equipment. Due to increasing technologies, it is anticipated that our current televising truck and system will be obsolete in the next 4-6 years, so it is anticipated that replacement would be necessary. Storm Drainage 1995: Street Sweeper. This will replace our current model which is 10 years old. The existing sweeper is a high maintenance item and no longer cost effective to maintain. The estimate cost is for a 4-wheel sweeper, which is more mobile and versatile than the existing sweeper. Due to the growth of the City, the amount of sweeping necessary has also grown. Staff will evaluate the potential for privatizing the bulk sweeping periods (spring and fall clean ups) , but there is also sweeping done on a regular basis all summer long. Prior to receiving authorization to prepare the specifications for this equipment, staff will complete the privatization study. It is anticipated that the study will be completed by July, 1994 . Heavy Duty Ditch Mower. Due to the increasing number of drainage ditches being constructed, additional mowing capacity is needed. The current 1989 tractor is not large enough to add additional mowers to. Staff is proposing to replace the 1989 mower with a larger nower for added capacity. This mower is used exclusively for roadside ditches, drainageways (i.e. Upper Valley) etc. and therefore should be funded by the Storm Drainage Fund. 1996: Sidebroom Sweeper. This would replace the existing 1972 Sidebroom Sweeper which will no longer be cost effective to maintain for active use. 6 TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: Internal Service Fund DATE: August 30, 1994 Introduction Pursuant to recommendations from the auditors, Council has directed staff to prepare documents to implement an internal service fund for equipment. Following are some considerations in setting up such a fund. Backaround A recommendation from the auditors following the 1992 and 1993 audit was to establish an internal service fund for capital equipment. Two benefits for the City would be to smooth out not only the financing but the expenditures in the General Fund and to remove the fund balance in the Capital Equipment Fund from the general and special revenue fund types to an internal service fund. The state would be less likely to view the fund balance in an internal service fund as spendable by a city and use that as a reason to reduce aids. The proposed Equipment Fund (EF) could be established in a variety of levels of complexity. At least initially, it is proposed to set up the fund as simply as possible under the guidelines of; selected equipment would be covered, operating and maintenance costs would be borne by the using departments, a flat rate would be charged for the use of the equipment with rates set by equipment and all covered equipment acquisitions would go through the EF. Items to cover. Staff is proposing to include mobile powered equipment that costs around $10, 000 and more. This generally includes cars, trucks, loaders, graders, sweepers, larger mowers, tractors and larger snow blowers. Items in the five year list that would not be included are copiers, computers, radios, fire hose, air paks, etc. Trucks that are one ton and under are depreciated on a 10 year life. Squad cars are 4 years with an additional 3 years if they are cycled down for administrative use. New administrative cars are 10 years and used cars are 8 years. Dump trucks are 10 years. Most fire trucks are about 20 years and loaders/graders are 15 years. Council may want to review the detail on the attached pages. Cost imcact on General Fund. The expenditure for the larger items would not show in the General Fund (GF) as it does now and would be offset by not having a transfer in from the Capital Equipment Fund (CEF) to pay for them. Result is no effect on the bottom line for the GF. The expenditure for the smaller items will still show in the GF but without an offsetting transfer in from the CEF. Result will be a negative effect on the bottom line of about $60, 000 per year on the GF. SPUC contribution over the minimum has been placed in the CEF. This would now go to the GF and increase transfers in from SPUC. Result is a positive effect on the bottom line of about $250, 000 for the GF. Rental payments to the internal service fund for the larger pieces of equipment would now show in the CF as expenditures. Result is a negative effect on the bottom line of about $298 , 000. The cash balance of the CEF is projected to be $1, 200, 000 at the end of 1994 . The "accumulated depreciation" of the assets to be transferred to the new internal service fund is about $1, 670, 000. Transferring the cash of $1, 200, 000 from the CEF plus $103 , 340 from the Sewer Fund (for sewer assets depreciation) would provide the new fund with starting capital but it would be under capitalized from the accumulated depreciation stand point. For assets that are replaced earlier than scheduled, it is proposed to increase the rental of the new item to recover any loss in book value instead of requiring a contribution from the renting department. For assets that are kept longer than scheduled, it is proposed to charge only an inflation rent after the planned life is up. Action Requested Offer Resolution Number 4077 A Resolution Establishing an Internal Service Equipment Fund, and move its adoption. is \public\lctus\fin\internal Resolution No. 4077 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AN INTERNAL SERVICE FUND FOR EQUIPMENT Whereas, the auditors for the City of Shakopee have recommended that an internal service fund for equipment be established, and Whereas, the Committee Of The Whole has recommended that an internal service fund for equipment be established, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that an internal service fund for equipment be established effective December 31, 1994 with the following guidelines; The Equipment Fund shall "own" and acquire larger pieces of mobile powered equipment including but not limited to cars, trucks, graders, loaders, tractors and larger mowers or items generally costing $10, 000 or more. The operating departments shall "rent" all such equipment from the Equipment Fund at rates established annually by the Finance Department as part of the budget process. Operating departments shall be responsible for operation and maintenance costs including insurance. The existing Special Revenue Fund - Capital Equipment Revolving Fund fund balance is to be transferred to the new Equipment Fund to provide operating capital and applicable covered equipment to be transferred from the General Fixed Asset Account Group and the Enterprise Funds to the Equipment Fund. Adopted in session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the day of , 1994 . Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney 3 _ N J M pp.. .t P .t q M 1.. P •O N� NM O es- P OP M NI IV CO >. 43 co PPP -. O O N N S O N n g CV arc e} .- _ P P O N NN •O •O • • .c ... .4.. CO J M CO C C W 2 M '- J C O cc O CCO S O .t O O CO N J COq fV •O . M VA •O O •O M O q ••QQ •O 0 0 V N 0 0 0 0 N � OO J N CO O _ ..} - N V - M o Zr M Oan •ONN PN . NOO •O M00 • • _ O N ? W Z J N P CO M .. .44:01N J .t 1n .t •O N M f` M 0000 JJ Z S ^ M e-- ' N 1A < W M CO > OC •O N N. O O NCO P it. M an 1n P .t O 1A M .1 CO 0 0 e- CO V1 N Ni p J .t M CO •O CO_ CO CO N s O •O •O A CO V1 0 N. V1 N .t N. J NJ .Y CO V1 In 1L W P CO 0• •O 1N N • q •O V1 P P •O J N M O N M •O CO N. N •O h • •U q q O N N. N •O .t J •- ..- N. N. J •O P N .- •p •O M N P N M ..- N. .- •O M M CO CO W - J '0 N O •O 1n f < W Cc N.1 CO M IN h t` > J S r J .t O 1- N N O .- •O 1A O N P •O 1- O W M N 0 O 00. CO 1n 1n V1 CO M .- 0' •O O P 1 O M P .- P .t h O 1A 1A N N •O N Nu- 1A O CO CO J J P M N qq NJ M M •O CO 1n 1A J0 •O 0 1,- .- M CO • •O •O q' • j I- 1- Y .- e•- . •Q 00121 V M P .- N M O. N M .- M1 22 < O 2 W CIC N Q OC N N - CY V1 C O .- J •O N. P .t N J NJ CO 0 N M 1A 1n •O CO O O 1A N .t N O O _ — — - a e- C NJ N r' v • N •C CO 1 Y CC 'p 1� co P N .! CO .! .t •O M M •O CO P ONJ .tM en an arc L Os P p. N. N CO q CO CO q pp. P P pp. P & Oq q q q L CO CO CO O• P P O• P P P P P P 0, 0, OO• o r• poo' (V 03 ••••• •-•, Ci Y fT U 6 C O M N CO CO 0 0 0 0 M in 0 O O - Ca 0 N M M O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N C •F S C .- J O. _ _ ✓ •O O N p. CO J •O •O O O .t CO O 1n M 0 CO O M N V1 1A O •Op •O 1A U1 in N N C .t N. .t P '0 N O N. J O M P NJ N O NJ N M N. 1n CO O0 CO q •O CO CO q O q •O q •nP CO P 1� •O CO q P M s O P N N. •O • C) a+ N. p. . M N J CO 1. O N. '0 P p PCO art •OO S 1 O M CO C- r- J meow ✓ U CC 1L C- C- .— • '- • O ..- co CC co 0 N - NMI .-- 1 P M en • "' a " ' Mo a, O N O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O O 00000 O O O O O O (V CO O O O O O O 00000000 O O O O O 7 7 in V1 V1 y1 1n V1 O V1 O O N O O O V1 O O O O In V1 V1 V1 O O .- ^ .-• e-• .- .-- • (V W - NJ N .t 1 NJ .t S S NJ M J M 0 C- N •- e- CC > O .- 2 M N O 0 O O O M q N O O O. N O ON CO O p O O CO M M 0 U• M M IN CO N 4,•7 P .t PP O O O O V1 O M V1 0 0 0 0 0 0 ] P N N A 0 0 N P _ M M O •O N O N O •O N O 1n O V> 1n O .t M L L , O .t CO O V1 an P N O t N O 1n O A O - O0 a •C) w •O •- •OO M N ✓ 3 M N. M M •O 0 CO 1n S N •O e�11 O •O O CC C) U O 1n CO NJ •O P r+1 P - •0 M .t N O O O •O NJ N- M 1A N C O O u1 O O O 2 U P O O P •: N O g q co M P P N •- M O '0M O M M NiN N � O L L .- •- N 1n V1 a+ ✓ a_ 4, m • C) CO 2 2 Z Z 2 2 O O O O O O O O O O y y C) O O a 0. Y Y Y L L L L L L L L LLLLL L ✓ CC V) L L L p 2 2 2 C7 `- .- .- .- .- .- .- .- .- .- > C2 G7 C7 C 2 2 2 2 2 2 u. W U. LL U U. u. LL W W LL LL W 1L U. (0 0. 0. a LU W W W W W Y C C. V s C v. 4, a x Lr: •., s /o 0 0 CO W L0) CO U c .0 03 M CC- O O 'N: 17.N. ✓ y L L OL .0 < C + O O O 0) L U U 1 E. Y 1 Y L V L L C O + C - > > a d .. ..74.,LX L ✓ X ✓ C1 C) 0 C7 CO X Q d CO CO W O `7 Cj - ✓ = X > v N O 07 U U CO L O O W - O E .. — L L •- L .t C1- 0. 1— 0 p O ✓ LL LL 0 > O_ O C O Z - \ ..- w N. - C L I- ✓ \ O cd - J N y � 0 0 U U C C Z 7 N N O V: (.0 - !+1 •1- M - Y w O N M C �, L W ✓ O > > • 0- > O > >L. y > W > > Y a > '0 L Y ••- a > C! > O O z a a > a U U JL ✓ U .0 U O U U U U C U - O O (C O L U E +.-, - O O L J 0 L - O O ••- a L 0 = = 2 = J - 10 O - O O. (V L O t •- L •- O LL LL U Q LL r t N 0 - U V) U U C7 U Q U 2 = U S N 5 1- 1L U U. U V) 5 J r N O ^ U N. O a N ' 0 C ' • O in -4 O CO P 0 N .7 J Q O OP O M V1 V O, N CO CO 0 P P OP I- N. NCO g CO CO O. 0. p. - pCO P C P P P P O• O• a P P OaPPPPPP P P O P PP COPCO • CO GQ CO aT+ w .L T N M V1 •O N. •C P CO C- V :n .O N. CO 0 N M N. N M Ni N N Ni NJ NJ CO U C U - ._ u) !� O A N J O J M CO ^ A CO N M N. N. •- CT '0 '�1 O M 1� O co P N N M 0 V1 N LA N N C- .- N) COq M Cl'. V v d `O M N- O NJ M M .t V1 an v N N NJ ✓ N N N NJ NJ N. N • Ni NJ NJ NJ N N OM 0 V1 CA 4 M Q NJ J P CO 0 J IA •O CO IA N P CO N J N h N P M IA 0 CO M CO V1CO P 4.- N N N 'O IA 4- CO CO 0 N P IA 0 J •0 .- to N O N N M J N P CO .- •O 0 N 1- 'O h M CO IA 4- h J Al N .- - N J - •O 4-. 4-. 4- .- NI NI M M M .- tel • N CV •O J • ..--.2. IA h M CV •0 CAl MO •JO •0 ✓ N 4- •0 N 0 IA CO OP N 0 P P 0 P 0 CO 0 N 0 •O N 0 0 P h M N •O 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO 4- P 0 N P P M .0 .- 0./ .3 N in N CO N P J Al CO NI f' •O IA 0 • N IA Co CO N LA 0 J .O J P J O M CO O • •0 M •0 IA • P • co .0 J •0 '0 CO M .O M N J J M J CO CO J J M P M P N N J in P N j 1.1 J J O J N N .O V1 IA 0 J O 4- M J O N O _P N. N M O N CO .p 0 0 0, .- / in N P .- N O O In CO P 0 N M J .- P CO IA N CO P - 0 P CO CO 0 •O .O IA IA 0 CO 0 N J P IA h N N IA •O N 0' N J J N M O M N .0 • N J M J • IA MM • M NI P N P •O •O P .- .- N h M •O P .- N. J v- P0 CO CO M -3 P M N N NI N 4- M .- P0 M J M M N M J 0 0 CO NI N N N .- CV .0 IA .O J P 0 Al M CO O CO 0 P 1. IA O MNN. .O M IA 0 CO CO N O 0 J IA N O .O In O In P ••c0� 0 M .- N CO N N In M P IA P .- N _ 0 1s M CO IA IA .0 0 J •O •0 - O J NI NI CO IA N N 0 J •O J •0 P J 0 CO •0 • .- CO J •O .- In • .0M • .- N .- M M 4- .- N J .- .- .- N 4- .- N M J J J .- J J N N CO IA M .- IA CO .0 P J LA 0 PIA P J P h M .- re OC ^ C CY CC i. n N M IA CO CO P J (Si O N e- e- M 0 . . N N CO M N O J IA N N M N J IA M N N. CO 0 NI M J J P N h CO NI 0 N N M M M J CO 0 J 0 N M CO NI •O O N M /O c0 P P P P P CO CO CO CO P P Os 0• O• Q P O• Q IA CO CO P P P CO CO h Co Co Co P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 0' P P vv P P P P P P 00 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 In CO CO 0 CO M CO J J J J J 0 J 0 IA IA O IA IA 0 0 IA 0 0 0 O M O O O N N .O h IA N M O CO M N_ O J O IA CO •O P M P IA M P O .- 0 P .} IA 1� N .- N J CO _N 0 M to .0 IA P 0 IA •0 P CO IA 0 P O 1� J J N O V1 0 Co O .O N IA N 0 .O IA 0 M •O M NI CO CO J N. CO .- Cs IA N • N. f� CO N • IA NI • M M •••000 P 0 J NI M CO IA I,. 0 0 M 0 J IA N •O •O CO CO IA N .O .O N M .on Co M J M M M .- .- M J ' .- A ." N . M .- M N CV CO IA 0 .-N N CO N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000000 O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O O V1 O O O IA M O N IA IA 0 C. 0 0 IA 0 O O IA O O IA O O O O O IA M N 4- N e- 4- 4- J . .- •- M M M M N J NI - .- M J NI .- IA J M M 4- O In 00 0 0 .1 J 0 0 IA 0 IA 0 IA IA O J J O O N O CO O CP 0 Q P c 0 0 In 0 CO 0 .- .- N Co0- 0 IA IA CO CO MO .- .- N M s- s M O N 0 ti P P •O CO 7 O M tel 7 M CO N M CO M CO 7 7 O 1. .O J 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 O IA O N. M J CO N 0 ,0 .- IA Al N. 1• Al P J In •O CO CO CO O O 0 0 IA L • O M J CO J J •O .O M NI N C) 0 • .- .- M P N J to N IA •O IA IA In M IA N IA N .- P •0 J •0 P J CO M •I- CO M M .." O M CO J O •0 1. N 1- •0 •0 J O P •0 O N M J J N J M 1. C 0 P In .O C- h to N N. V1 0 P P N N P M O IA IA N , N. P W N •O N •0 •0 •O CO IA M .- CO J CO IA IA N In .0 N .- - N M .- +- LA � .- L IA N CS)V h IA N IA IA M M N V C7 C) C) C7 01 01 C7 C! Cr C) CI C1 ++ V a.. ++ 000000001) 000 SE 07 CI 0) 01 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Z •- •- •- •- •- •- •- •- •- •- 0) 0/ 0 01 C) 0) L L C) Cr C) 01 L 0 0 L L L L Q 2 3 3 2 3 3 0 0 L L I- L W q q W W W q J O O O O O O O O O O O o 0/ v 07 C +' O. a 0. a 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. a 0. a 0. a 0. a 0. a 0. a N 0. A n CO CO IN In CONCAN 7 0 L 10 O > cc 0. W O L IA 'O -0 -0 •0 -0 10 L + •CO Or +�' 0. 0. 10 W 0000 CO C7 L 4, O. O 0 0 7 7 7 7 7 7 C w C1 7 •7 W In L 7 0" O" a• Q ff O' ° W + •-• Cr O' O N G IA O 0 Cr N N N In N N L > I.. d • 0) C7 + Cc 7 1- f 0 IN ~ v 0 U U U_ U U ac E 4-+ C yy + + _ w .-• L < 0 0 0 > ... > > > > > O ' a -) O. a a+ Y Y G • W L I.- + + C7 0 L (A C CC CC CC N CY G 0 -4 C1 4.' ✓ L L L 0 L 0 0. - L 01 U W U LI LI U L I.t1.1 U . 00 L J 0 0 3 U. Q. ¢. CI 3 0 3 LA 3 ' U W 0. 3 15 0 >• 0 0 0 0 7 N 0 \ •O 01 O C I ) E E C O 0 M 0 L 3 Y L W 7 L- I- 0 .- r i- I- W W I- LU NI '- 3 I- CO o w 7 7 W E '- f U X 0 N G 0 U N co _i J U C1 .- J = 1.' f L -0 .0 CY a+ Q U C7 0 - 0.7 -• W w E C/ G 0) o - 0 > 0 u G •' > > -0 rn "0 V -0 M M 0 J CA - > 17 17 In OW 0 -0 0 a L Y U L C7 L q L C C) 0 T L . L L L L L O L 0 a L w 07 L L 0 L 5- q L L L Cr f 0 .0 0 L 7 J O t 0000000 .- O G 0 C Y .0 0 0 J L ♦' In 0 0 0 0 ▪ U )- LI 1- I- .- Q 0. U U G Ii 0 I. W W LL IL N L. 0 - - U W LL Q Co In J IL LL LL N. 0 O CO CO J0 CO N. N. CO P O .- N N M M M J Q CO J J 0 N M O C) M Q •O 0 Al M c0 0 P O• P P Os I- CO CO CO CO CO Os P O• P O• P P Os I- In N- 0 0• P P 5 .0 CO.-.0. n CO CO CO P P P P P P P _P P P P P P P P P P P P P 0 P P P P P P •- P O 0. 0. 0. 0• - N M J In •0 Ps O 0 N M J IA •0 ti CO P 0 .- In In •O N M M M CO M M M M J J J J J J N. J J J IA N N IA IA IA In 0 a. P O N CO O J CO M 0 0 0 - J M In N. Co N N. .0 NO J O 0 IA N N - M N .O P •O •O N- .0 •0 CO J M . .- •0 •0 •O In P P P CO O N O CO M P 0 N1 J J In In co Co •- .- M M J J J J J In •ON N J In .- N .0 P N Si N N N N N N N .-' Al N N N N N Al N N N ^ - N N N N .- .- ..- .- .7 5 d O Cr I•- 1 P P 1".- CO .- P r... N 1 •O P O •O M 0 M 11 N 1 V1 IA M1 M •0 Y1 V1 0 0• N N V1 P N •M IIH .t V1 M -. M O N h •0 A A M A ^ M II N M II O11 . •0 11 CO A U N U .pp in a O � O• •O N •O N M 0 .t 1 N 1 1 n 0 00 U A NU N IA N A 0• �} II U M n e M •O '_ CO IA .0 0 ~ A N 0 N .0 11 f� -4 I1 .0 P II • U N 11 II .t O. .O .O .- CO N M CO O N CO •0 h M •O 1 N II .- CO .0 I/1 N •0 0 1 M V1 N 0 N II C^ N P in in M N -4' O N v N P V1 O U CO In .t M M M N h N .- .t M1 IV 1,1 N N in O P P 1 11 r 11 In u in F- II in II II II CO .t . O_ M N 1 1 O .O IA .t O N N P •0 F. M 0 P II II 1 N N cop ••O A N CO N 1!1 V1 t In • 11 M 1 M CO M CO 0 M0 O .O .t M l'•-• •O N II O 1A M 1 I- .t N N M CO CO CO CO st P 1 M 11 .- 11 A 1 11 O N 11 M II CZ i. .t •0 N .t M 1 P .t I11 N 0 •O A N CO CO C0 OCCP COCOCC000 P P P P 0- 0- P P P P P P 0• P P O• P O V1 in O N 0 0 IA 0 O M IA 0 0 In 0 0 U 1 CO M 0 •Q 0 0 1 N IA 0 •P11 .0 co 0 CO CO M NI •PO 0 U O� .e- .4 CLI CO N •I` co .O •0 N CO CO I,- IA J •O IA : • • II VI 1.1 II CO O• CO .- CO O in 0 0 - •0 M P 0. IA IA N .4 II NA M in .- -4' CO N M � CO CO NI CO P U O II N N 11 N ti II 11 1 u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO IA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IA 0 0 0 0 0 0 .- -4 .4 1 .3 M 1 0 N M IA J 1 IA M J II 0 N P 11 0 U 00 II 0 O II 0 CO •0 U M .10 P II 11 P1A 0 0 0 •O 0 0 Is 0 M M 0 40 O .0 CO II MII •\ .ON 0 0 0 0 0 L 0 .0 0 in CO .- O Io CO 0 •O N U •00 •U •O 1 s CO P CO In t0A in CT II N A 1 •O •O b U1 CO e- N .O 1A M 1 N CO . V1 11 11 I. IA N 0 I- V1 A .t CO I 0 CO N IA O 0 O N c0 ii N II IA M M .- M N .- fV CO •0 •0 P IA Is CO P 11 1 N II 11 11 11 11 11 CJ CI C) C) C1 0) Co 01 0) 0) C) C/ N C) C) 01 C1 II L L . C) 01 0) Co 0/ O) O/ C) C1 O1 Cf O1 L O1 11 L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L II II N N N N N N N N N N Vf N N N N CO N 11 1 11 11 11 II 11 Y 0 II a II .L+ 7 G 7 • II V 0CouO C) II ) 1- 1-. Q 6 Q t II C7 C) t O + P N Ol II � C) II L V . cc + Y U U I Y I II I II N 7 N II cr. L L X .+ L L. L L L CL '. l0 0) J II IL CI 0 U U ✓ SS U ea H 11 . 11 in 0 3 0 Q. -0 LL a L aE O u • I. E O O_ A C • E O 7 I"' 0 II %11 r L 0 a+ J L 7 '0 L W - CO ^ O 0 CC 111 O U >. 0 W O II • 0 ~ 7 3 T -0 U � Ts ' U '17 0 C) U CC 2 II f > f O 0 C-3 0 o � o O O x O O I- a II S N < II (O II .. CO N CO CL' 1-- CO I. J LL J < ^ J II N. 0 ? O. P 0 0 0 N V N11 M < �I 0- 0 0 CO 0 0 C0 C0 Os P P P P P 0• P 0 II 0- 0- 0- 0- 0. 0. 0- 0- 0- 0. 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0-? P P P P P P P P P r CI ii p 11 b O N M .0 .0 .0 N II L^1 M \: •O v^ •Q Mu II • N N O P .- .2 1 FIMO0 MMP . .4 - � c0 ,1 N O O ti N N (V N M .t 1 .t IA N . N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M 6 N City of Shakopee Pay 95 tax levy REF 93/94 94/95 Change 1 2 General Fund 2,535,243 2,535,243 3 Est. Value growth 4.0% 101,410 4 TIF # 4 Closure 1.7% 43,099 5 6 Total General Fund 2,535,243 2,679,752 144,509 5.7% 7 8 Debt Service 9 1986A Imp 36,114 10 19868 Imp 33,839 32,092 11 1987A Imp 779 12 1988A Imp 16,684 17,332 13 1990A Imp 136,465 137,729 14 1991A Imp 13,172 39,086 15 1992A Imp 33,629 33,747 16 19938 Imp 0 17 18 Total Debt Service 270,682 259,986 (10,696) 19 20 Total Levy 2,805,925 2,939,738 133,813 4.8% 21 22 Fiscal Disp Dist (318,000) (280,610) 37,390 23 24 Net Levy to spread 2,487,925 2,659,128 171,203 6.9% 25 26 Allowance for Uncoil. (64,044) (58,795) 5,249 27n 28 Budget Amount ._ 2,423 882 2,600,333 176,452 7.3% _.3 ' `, 4„,,, 29 30 General Fund 2,423,882 2,340,347 31 Debt Service Funds 0 259,986 1 b. 1995 GENERAL FUND BUDGET SUMMARY 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Estimate Revenue Taxes $1,495,759 $1,804,670 $2,063,997 $2,215,861 $2,690,777 $2,816,882 Special Assessments Licenses and Permits 403,310 354,223 291,096 336,794 481,992 344,700 Intergovernmental 1,011,297 751,911 569,039 634,990 781,224 809,480 Charges for Service 959,497 803,778 965,418 966,139 1,277,803 1,175,210 Fines and Forfeits 64,556 60,788 51,449 63,644 63,773 60,000 Miscellaneous 201,756 161,042 224,180 277,719 238,984 96,590 Total Revenue 4,136,175 3,936,412 4,165,180 4,495,147 5,534,553 5,302,862 Expenditures General Goverment 873,682 934,319 974,375 1,169,460 1,199,244 1,348,970 Public Safety 1,305,504 1,421,359 1,413,191 1,695,577 1,599,182 2,241,750 Public Works 1,412,158 1,425,231 1,430,539 1,533,166 1,694,055 1,733,070 Recreation 316,047 335,212 488,797 531,528 635,077 657,580 Miscellaneous 114,257 54,930 45,586 43,178 40,040 177,000 Total Expencitures 4,021,648 4,171,051 4,352,488 4,972,909 5,167,598 6,158,370 Excess (deficiency) Revenues over Expenditures 114,527 (234,639) (187,308) (477,762) 366,955 (855,508) Other Sources 595,572 546,959 716,424 742,646 572,905 978,634 Other Uses (758,679) (655,520) (552,000) (1,102,265) Excess (deficiency) Revenues & Other Sources Over Expenditures & Other Uses ($48,580) ($343,200) $529,116 ($287,116) ($162,405) $123,126 Residual Equity Transfer 87,752 Fund Balance December 31 $1,745,283 $1,337,503 $1,866,619 $1,667,255 $1,504,850 $1,627,976 1 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Revenue Taxes $2,715,800 $2,824,750 $2,938,847 $3,057,574 $3,181,125 Special Assessments 0 0 0 0 0 Licenses and Permits 438,600 432,600 443,100 448,100 453,100 Intergovernmental 821,250 820,400 820,400 820,400 820,400 Charges for Service 714,560 712,960 739,760 749,070 763,390 Fines and Forfeits 64,000 66,000 68,000 70,000 72,000 Miscellaneous 141,350 141,350 141,350 141,350 141,350 Total Revenue 4,895,560 4,998,060 5,151,457 5,286,494 5,431,365 Expenditures General Government 1,537,730 1,654,419 1,676,556 1,740,738 1,816,568 Public Safety 1,971,565 2,006,968 2,006,834 1,832,864 1,864,158 Public Works 1,430,180 1,394,467 1,540,726 1,469,035 1,531,476 Recreation 668,580 695,323 723,136 752,062 782,144 Miscellaneous 111,000 115,440 120,058 124,860 129,854 Total Expenditures 5,719,055 5,866,617 6,067,310 5,919,558 6,124,201 Excess (deficiency) Revenues over Expenditures (823,495) (868,557) (915,853) (633,064) (692,835) Other Sources 524,384 274,384 274,384 274,384 274,384 Other Uses 0 0 0 0 0 Excess (deficiency) Revenues & Other Sources Over Expenditures & Other Uses ($299,111) ($594,173) ($641,469) ($358,680) ($418,451) Residual Equity Transfer Fund Balance December 31 $1,328,865 $734,692 $93,222 ($265,458) ($683,909) 1995 GENERAL FUND BUDGET - REVENUES 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1994 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL EST. YTD 8/29 Taxes Current Ad Valorem $1,256,751 $1,558,340 1,745,270 1,843,792 $2,298,852 $2,423,882 $1,136,431 Fiscal Disparities 159,131 174,849 239,916 286,325 301,900 318,000 96,434 Lodging Tax 79,877 71,481 78,811 85,744 90,025 75,000 55,730 Total Taxes 1,495,759 1,804,670 2,063,997 2,215,861 2,690,777 2,816,882 1,288,595 0 Special Assessment Licenses & Permits Cable Franchise 32,153 27,858 25,800 34,732 48,789 25,000 20,236 Track Franchise 67,757 48,328 31,108 13,610 0 Liquor Licenses 57,385 67,461 69,430 64,187 57,574 60,000 60,128 Beer Licenses 4,160 4,778 4,150 5,156 4,697 5,000 9,077 Cigarette licenses 580 521 799 555 535 800 45 Building Permits 201,034 130,593 111,528 157,440 256,132 175,000 132,553 Plumbing Permits 11,299 25,138 13,918 19,040 41,536 30,000 20,318 Mechanical Permits 8,261 17,819 5,388 9,648 23,975 15,000 17,383 Septic Permits 425 563 600 938 1,200 500 900 Sewer Permits 2,229 2,115 2,861 3,672 6,134 2,500 3,811 Electric Permits 13,401 23,379 17,187 21,827 31,722 27,500 15,189 Street Opening Permits 2,100 2,220 6,340 4,523 6,900 2,500 2,700 Housing 1,855 2,320 0 Misc. Business Permits 249 281 1,686 1,210 2,455 600 3,208 Dog Licenses 422 305 300 256 258 300 167 Misc. Non-Bus. Lic. 544 2 85 0 6 Tctal Lic. & Permits 403,310 354,223 291,096 336,794 481,992 344,700 285,721 Intergovernmental Grants 319 1,590 0 Mobile Home 826 475 928 0 634 800 58 HACA 241,786 395,085 303,408 347,980 417,747 449,840 224,920 Police Training 8,109 7,820 6,443 5,933 6,379 7,000 Local Government Aid 637,889 251,738 154,328 155,092 147,216 158,840 79,421 State Hwy Maint Aid 16,080 18,165 18,165 18,165 103,164 105,000 90,977 Pclice State Aid 74,804 71,696 76,124 89,385 89,686 80,000 Agricultural Credit 6,652 A3gregate Tax 2,511 6,613 8,052 13,362 11,010 8,000 5,989 Grants - Other Govts 22,640 C 5,073 5,388 Total intergovernmental 1,011,297 751,911 569,039 634,990 781,224 809,480 401,365 3 1995 GENERAL FUND BUDGET - REVENUES 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 EST. EST. EST. EST. EST. Account Taxes Code Current Ad Valorem 9001-3100 $2,340,490 $2,434,110 42,531,474 $2,632,733 52,738,042 Fiscal Disparities 9001-3104 280,610 294,641 309,373 324,841 341,083 Lodging Tax 0176-3140 94,700 96,000 98,000 100,000 102,000 Total Taxes 2,715,800 2,824,750 2,938,847 3,057,574 3,181,125 Special Assessment 9001-3610 Licenses & Permits Cable Franchise 9001-3212 40,000 41,000 42,000 43,000 44,00 Track Franchise 9001-3215 10,000 0 0 0 0 Liquor Licenses 9001-3220 60,000 60,000 63,000 63,000 63,000 Beer Licenses 9001-3221 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Cigarette licenses 9001-3223 800 800 800 800 800 Building Permits 0333-3240 230,000 232,000 234,000 236,000 238,000 Plumbing Permits 0334-3241 35,000 36,000 37,000 38,000 39,000 Mechanical Permits 0334-3242 20,000 21,000 22,000 23,000 24,000 Septic Permits 0333-3244 1,500 500 500 500 500 Sewer Permits 0333-3245 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 Electric Permits 0331-3243 27,500 27,500 30,000 30,000 30,000 Street Opening Permits 0411-3250 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 Housing Misc. Business Permits 9001-3229 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 Dog Licenses 9001-3260 300 300 300 300 300 Misc. Non-Bus. Lic. 9001-3270 0 0 0 0 0 Total Lic. & Perrsiits 438,600 432,600 443,100 448,100 453,100 Intergovernmental Grants 9001-3340 Mobile =ome 9001-3343 800 800 800 800 800 Homestead 9001-3342 456,585 456,585 456,585 456,585 456,585 Police Training 9001-33=6 7,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 Local Gcvernment Aid 9001-3341 150,865 149,015 149,015 149,015 149,015 State y Main: Aid 9001-3348 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 Police State Aid 9001-3351 90,000 92,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 Agricu'.:ural Credit Aggregate Tax 9001-3361 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 Grants - Other Govts 9001-3363 Total :rtergoverrmental 821,250 823,400 820,400 820,400 820,4=0 4 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1994 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL EST. YTD 8/29 Charges for Service Valleyfair 9,427 9,519 10,195 11,215 12,336 11,000 13,570 Administrative Fee 199,018 32,514 55,519 89 63,846 40,000 7,747 0 I.R. Bond Fee 3,750 Engineering Services 136,603 151,619 150,175 126,788 308,966 305,000 178,314 Engineering Grade Fee 1,845 3,253 2,118 3,370 3,399 2,500 2,040 Plan Check 81,752 49,641 61,073 87,367 134,895 90,000 72,320 Recording Fee 14 38 515 Assessment Search 2,484 1,690 2,194 5,210 5,850 2,000 2,850 Sale of Documents 2,500 2,356 4,008 3,644 7,256 3,500 6,519 Release of Dev. Agreement 470 330 Comprehensive Plan Fee 8,160 2,442 14,117 12,394 100 10,000 Land Division Administration 22,378 18,079 1,471 Land Use Administration Retained Fees 485 446 377 Street Repair 553 0 876 Snow Removal 472 12,596 5,039 5,878 2,000 6,229 Public Works Rentals 3,863 547 736 440 751 500 Misc. Public Works 2,657 932 3,117 6,864 7,538 2,500 3,141 Misc. Police Services 32,070 6,692 29,399 46,677 14,256 2,214 Pound Fines & Fees 715 1,576 1,291 1,807 1,417 1,200 2,514 Fire Calls & Contracts 29,937 27,444 16,476 20,036 27,115 35,000 16,987 Water Slide 15,004 13,993 11,105 9,468 9,227 11,200 Season Tickets-Pool 15,800 16,524 17,743 18,717 16,207 16,000 21,260 Admissions-Pool 20,886 19,921 20,347 18,655 22,027 20,000 22,215 Swim Lessons 9,259 9,728 10,807 9,914 7,649 10,000 9,362 Youth Activities 30,536 34,893 38,626 45,527 41,167 36,040 27,361 Adult Activities 30,069 24,717 39,261 41,645 35,127 44,190 13,291 Other Recreation Fees 3,642 4,389 Township Contributions 0 4,179 4,179 3,400 Non Resident Fee 2,776 1,071 2,595 70 2,580 2,135 Concessions 11,031 11,297 9,725 9,139 10,796 10,600 10,394 Refuse Disposal 296,662 348,213 421,:65 474,705 497,963 516,000 233,692 Refuse Coupons 14,417 30,573 32,240 140 13,298 8,327 Total Charges for Svs. 959,497 803,778 965,418 966,139 1,277,803 1,175,210 687,627 5 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 EST. EST. EST. EST. EST. Charges for Service Valleyfair 9001-3425 12,500 12,500 13,000 13,000 13,500 Administrative Fee 9001-3404 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,0000 20,0000 I.R. Bond Fee 0 0 0 Engineering Services 0411-3435 310,000 315,000 325,000 330,000 335,000 Engineering Grade Fee 0411-3436 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 Plan Check 0331-3406 120,000 120,000 130,000 130,000 135,000 Recording Fee Assessment Search 9001-3408 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Sale of Documents 9001-3407 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 Release cf Dev. Agreement 9001-3409 400 400 400 400 400 Comprehensive Plan Fee 0171-3410 3,000 3,000 3,000 4,000 4,000 Land Division Administration0171-3411 10,500 10,500 11,500 12,500 14,000 Land Use Administration 0171-3414 11,000 13,000 15,000 17,000 19,000 Retained Fees Street Repair 9001-3431 Snow Removal 9001-3430 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Public Works Rentals 9001-3432 500 500 500 500 500 Misc. Put tic Works 9001-3433 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Misc. Police Services 0317-3420 Pound Fines & Fees 9001-3424 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 Fire Calls & Contracts 9001-3421 40,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 Water Slide 0611-3473 Season Tickets-Pool 0611-3470 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 Admissions-Pool 0611-3471 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 Swim Lessons 0611-3472 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 Youth Activities 0641-3477 45,900 42,000 43,000 43,000 43,000 Adult Activities 0641-3478 40,000 40,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 Other Recreation Fees 0641-3490 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 Township Contributions 0641-3489 4,000 4,120 4,240 4,370 4,500 Non Resident Fee 0641-3481 2,660 2,740 2,820 2,900 2,990 Concessions 0611-3479 10,700 10,800 10,900 11,000 11,100 Refuse Cisposal 0481-3450 Refuse Ccapons 0481-3452 Total Charges for Svs. 714,560 712,960 739,760 749,070 763,390 6 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1994 ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL EST. YTD 8/29 Fines and Forfeits Court Fines 64,556 60,788 51,449 63,644 63,773 60,000 37,055 Miscellaneous Interest 146,920 124,505 114,560 152,364 168,411 60,000 1,069 Rent 3,384 2,000 51,704 80,543 13,629 8,350 8,005 Contributions 50,349 50 15,011 6,505 6,768 8,240 1,735 Miscellaneous 1,103 34,487 42,905 38,307 50,177 20,000 18,407 Total Miscellaneous 201,756 161,042 224,180 277,719 238,985 96,590 29,216 Total Revenues 4,136,175 3,936,412 4,165,180 4,495,147 5,534,554 5,302,862 2,729,579 Other Sources Sale Of Assets 307,082 3,106 Capital Equipment 321,006 265,855 124,149 464,617 290,318 704,250 SPDC Contribution 274,566 281,104 285,193 278,029 279,481 274,384 264,000 Total Other Sources 595,572 546,959 716,424 742,646 572,905 978,634 264,000 Grand Total $4,731,747 54,483,371 $4,881,604 $5,237,793 $6,107,459 $6,281,496 $2,993,579 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 EST. EST. EST. EST. EST. Fines and Forfeits Court Fines 0161-3500 64,000 66,000 68,000 70,000 72,000 Miscellaneous Interest 9001-3621 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 Rent 9001-3622 8,350 8,350 8,350 8,350 8,350 Contributions 0655-3623 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 Miscellaneous 9001-3620 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 Total Miscellaneous 141,350 141,350 141,350 141,350 141,350 Total Revenues 4,895,560 4,998,060 5,151,457 5,286,494 5,431,365 Other Sources Sale Of Assets 9001-3980 Capital Equipment 9001-3923 SPUC Contribution 9001-3921 524,384 274,384 274,384 274,384 274,384 Total Other Sources 524,384 274,384 274,384 274,384 274,384 Grand Total $5,419,944 $5,272,444 $5,425,841 $5,560,878 $5,705,749 8 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Object 1992 1993 1994 Y-T-D DEPARTMENT PROPOSED Code Description ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET 08/29/94 REQUEST BUDGET 001 -GENERAL FUND DIVISION 00 - N/A -20 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL N/A DIVISION 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIVISION 11 - MAYOR & COUNCIL 410 PERSONNEL SERVICES 32,435 32,357 36,050 18,678 36,050 36,050 420 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 23,174 23,849 33,090 7,815 33,400 33,400 TOTAL MAYOR & COUNCIL DIVISION 55,609 56,206 69,140 26,493 69,450 69,450 DIVISION 12 - CITY ADMINISTRATOR 410 PERSONNEL SERVICES 192,648 147,136 141,260 80,197 148,900 156,900 420 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 56,505 50,389 49,280 19,772 60,000 60,000 -50 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 1,203 0 1,800 1,518 2,300 2,300 TOTAL CITY ADMINISTRATOR DIVISION 250,356 197,525 192,340 101,487 211,200 219,200 DIVISION 13 - CITY CLERK 410 PERSONNEL SERVICES 85,163 85,279 91,750 46,175 89,790 89,790 420 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 23,361 27,712 26,940 15,411 30,710 30,710 =50 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 0 0 0 0 2,670 2,670 =80 EXPENSE CHARGED TO OTHER ACT 0 -2,000 0 0 -2,000 -2,000 TOTAL CITY CLERK DIVISION 108,524 110,991 118,690 61,586 121,170 121,170 DIVISION 15 - FINANCE -10 PERSONNEL SERVICES 133,456 165,872 186,660 99,509 192,390 192,390 -20 SUPPL:ES & SERVICES 78,708 89,126 88,500 68,973 107,920 107,920 .50 CAPITA: EXPENDITURES 3,997 0 9,500 2,252 8,000 8,000 -30 EXPENSE CHARGED TO OTHER ACT 0 -6,000 0 0 -6,000 -6,000 FINANCE ':VIS10N 216,161 248,998 284,660 170,734 302,310 302,310 TO A_ DIVISIC., 16 - LEA_ COUNSEL -10 PERSC'•.,EL SERV::ES 96,342 120,623 168,650 75,816 186,480 186,480 -20 SUPPLIES & SER'::CES 10,355 23,468 19,320 5,462 23,880 23,880 515 2,238 0 0 5,230 3,730 -50 CAPITAL EXP-c NC:"EKES -2,000 -2,000 -80 EXPENSE CHARGE: "0 OTHER ACT 0 -2,000 0 0 TOTAL LEGAL CO_.,SEL DIVISION 107,212 144,329 187,970 81,278 213,590 212,090 DIV:SIC., 17 - PLA.,.,:NG -10 ?ERSC'.'.EL SERV::ES 138,344 195,754 248,240 138,305 295,880 295,880 94,224 116,428 150,220 61,1:1 165,770 167,040 -50 0A?:'-- EXPENC:-_RES 0 2,173 13,670 3,118 6,470 6,470 9 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Object 1992 1993 1994 Y-T-D DEPARTMENT PROPOSED Code Description ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET 08/29/94 REQUEST BUDGET 480 EXPENSE CHARGED TO OTHER ACT ,0 -4,000 0 0 -4,000 -4,000 TOTAL PLANNING DIVISION 232,568 310,385 412,130 202,524 464,120 465,390 DIVISION 18 - GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS 410 PERSONNEL SERVICES 28,524 40,582 47,650 27,067 48,780 48,780 420 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 109,564 90,233 68,140 42,815 98,720 99,340 TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS DIVISION 138,088 130,815 115,790 69,882 147,500 148,120 DIVISION 31 - POLICE 410 PERSONNEL SERVICES 1,109,803 1,157,631 1,189,720 706,532 1,288,830 1,288,830 420 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 127,682 140,507 160,120 83,478 163,450 197,495 450 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 54,477 59,219 38,750 34,965 63,000 32,000 TOTAL POLICE DIVISION 1,291,962 1,357,357 1,388,590 824,975 1,515,280 1,518,325 DIVISION 32 - FIRE 410 PERSONNEL SERVICES 98,652 126,964 147,760 62,717 176,280 167,280 420 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 57,536 98,697 119,550 58,436 136,700 261,460 450 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 247,427 16,164 598,000 575,743 374,500 24,500 TOTAL FIRE DIVISION 403,615 241,825 865,310 696,896 687,480 453,240 DIVISION 33 - INSPECTION-BLDG-PLMBG-HTG 410 PERSONNEL SERVICES 106,372 120,314 147,530 77,007 156,390 156,390 -20 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 27,436 31,507 39,590 18,379 39,650 41,390 -50 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 0 563 0 0 0 0 TOTAL INSPECTION-BLDG-PLMBG-HTG DIVISION 133,808 152,384 187,120 95,386 196,040 197,780 DIVISION 41 - ENGINEERING -10 PERSONNEL SERVICES 188,464 253,6=4 315,680 163,068 329,500 306,800 -20 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 23,327 37,'31 31,300 16,857 41,030 48,100 -50 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 11,463 563 14,500 12,460 8,200 8,200 -80 EXPENSE CHARGED TO OTHER ACT C -6,000 0 0 -6,000 -6,000 TOTAL ENGINEERING DIVISION 223,254 285,338 361,480 192,385 372,730 357,100 DIVISION 42 - STREET MAINTENANCE -10 PERSONNEL SERVICES 233,870 266,041 290,260 163,576 316,900 312,600 -20 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 243,448 227,835 293,450 76,357 349,450 -46,580 -50 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 156,448 122,354 3,110 3,111 180,000 0 TOTAL STREET MAINTENANCE DIVISION 633,766 616,230 586,820 243,044 846,350 759,180 DIVISION 44 - SHOP -10 PERSONNEL SERVICES 41,823 67,'333 80,830 49,842 82,:20 82,020 -20 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 21,843 19,7'i 23,700 9,056 24,900 24,900 10 CITY OF SHAKOPEE Object 1992 1993 1994 Y-T-D DEPARTMENT PROPOSED Code Description ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET 08/29/94 REQUEST BUDGET 450 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 1,611 42,632 61,950 61,943 13,600 9,200 TOTAL SHOP DIVISION 65,277 129,473 166,480 120,841 120,520 116,120 DIVISION 46 - PARK MAINTENANCE :10 PERSONNEL SERVICES 153,211 161,655 173,230 105,833 163,700 163,700 420 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 69,476 69,523 92,040 53,914 112,700 128,720 -50 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 4,804 62,599 42,000 23,873 18,000 0 TOTAL PARK MAINTENANCE DIVISION 227,491 293,777 307,270 183,620 294,400 292,420 DIVISION 48 - REFUSE COLLECTION _10 PERSONNEL SERVICES 1,852 1,857 2,900 1,307 0 0 -20 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 475,209 508,773 510,650 248,328 0 0 TOTAL REFUSE COLLECTION DIVISION 477,061 510,630 513,550 249,635 0 0 DIVISION 61 - POOL -10 PERSONNEL SERVICES 66,899 59,779 72,130 43,910 70,080 70,080 420 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 40,924 84,361 78,170 46,732 66,500 66,500 TOTAL POOL DIVISION 107,823 144,140 150,300 90,642 136,580 136,580 DIVISION 64 - RECREATION 410 PERSONNEL SERVICES 165,968 164,691 174,670 98,098 200,580 200,580 =20 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 28,451 30,840 31,360 15,653 39,500 36,500 -50 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 1,795 1,629 0 0 2,500 2,500 TOTAL RECREATION DIVISION 196,214 197,160 206,030 113,751 242,580 239,580 DIVISION 91 - UNALLOCATED -10 PERSONNEL SERVICES 0 0 0 23,253 0 0 -20 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 43,178 40,040 73,610 20,232 111,000 111,000 -70 TRANSFERS OUT 552,000 1,102,265 0 0 0 0 TOTAL UNALLOCATED DIVISION 595,178 1,142,305 73,610 43,485 111,000 111,000 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 5,463,967 6,269,868 6,187,280 3,568,644 6,052,300 5,719,055 11 E 1995 Budget Changes 8/25 8/29 8/30 REF 1 Rev 4,838,915 4,895,560 4,930,560 2 3 Exp 6,037,450 5,719,055 5,715,055 4 5 Tran 911,884 524,384 524,384 6 7 8 (286,651) (299,111) (260,111) 9 10 Fund Bal Draw Down 11 City Hall Elect 20,000 12 City Hall Fire Monitor 5,000 13 Pool Filter Bldg 10,000 14 CD Siren 17,000 15 1994 "surplus" 100,000 16 Equip rent buy down 17 18 Subtotal 152,000 19 20 (108,111) 21 , 22 23 Revenue Changes 24 Rec T Ball 2,400 25 Rec Activity Fee 1,500 26 Track Ticket Fee 10,000 27 Cable Revenue 5,000 28 Septic Permits - 1,000 29 Fire Fees 5,000 30 Taxes 25,000 31 HACA Aid 6,745 32 Fees inc 4% 35,000 33 Liquor License 34 35 56,645 35,000 36 37 Expenditure Changes 38 Admin Compensated Abensces 2,000 39 Legal Copier 1,500 40 Fire Work comp 9,000 41 Fire Fuel 1,000 42 PW Dir replacement 7,500 43 Eng Tech Replacement 3,000 44 Eng Temp Wages 11,200 45 Eng Temp Overtime 1,000 46 Street Temp wages 4,300 47 Street Tar Kettle 10,000 48 Shop Steam cleaner 4,400 49 Park prof sys (Murphy's) • 3,500 50 Pavement Presv. 10,000 51 Rec Blood borne path 3,000 52 EDA Impact (10,000) 53 Rec Correction (14,850) 54 Admin scanner ??2300 55 Planner Technician • ??30000 56 Police Officer ??38675 57 Code Enforcement ??-10000 58 Planning Equip Rental (1,270) 59 Govt Bldg Equip Rental (620) 60 Police Equip Rental (34,045) 61 Fire Equip Rental (125,760) 62 Inspect Equip Rental (1,740) 63 Eng Equip Rental (7,070) 64 Street Equip Rental (107,130) 65 Park Equip Rental (19,520) 66 Fire Telesquirt Truck 350,000 67 Police Squad ' 19,000 68 Police Unmarked 12,000 69 Street Dump Truck 70,000 70 Park Tractor 18,000 71 Street Loader 100,000 72 Shop Voice Mail 4,000 73 CD siren repair vs replace ?17000-4400 74 Fire MDT - delay ?10000 75 76 318,395 4,000 77 78 79 transfers 80 CEF Transfers in (637,500) 81 SPUC Increase 250,000 82 (387,500) i r TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director RE: State Highway Aid - Maintenance DATE: August 26, 1994 Introduction There are apparently two methods of determining how much state aid maintenance the city receives. Which method is selected impacts the General Fund budget and the funds available for future construction projects. Background One method of calculating maintenance aid is a fixed rate per mile of state aid streets. This is the method under which Shakopee received the aid historically. The amount was about $18, 000. The other method is a percentage of the total highway aid for the city. The Public Works Director selected this method for 1993 and 1994 and the aid was about $105, 000. For 1995 the Public Works Director has notified the state to use the fixed rate method for an amount of $25, 500. The budget presented to Council for consideration at the 8/25/94 meeting has maintenance aid budgeted at $105, 000. Alternatives 1. Reduce estimated revenue by $79, 500 and make other budget adjustments to cover the decrease in revenue. 2 . Direct the Public Works Director to notify the state to calculate maintenance aid at 25% of total aid allotment. Recommendation Finance recommends alternative number two. The city seems to have more trouble trying to balance the general fund budget than it does trying to fund construction projects. Many of the state aid construction projects have "surplus" aid in terms of total project funding. Action Requested • Move to direct the Public Works Director to notify the state that the City of Shakopee selects to receive the maintenance allotment calculated on the basis of 25% of the total state highway aid allotment. Pal11111=AI 4A4liv7 SHAKOPEE • 1, 1994 Mr. Kenneth Straus Mn/DOT State Aid Transportation Building/Room 420 John Ireland Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55155 RE: Maintenance Allotment Dear Mr. Straus: The City of Shakopee hereby notifie: ommissioner of Transportation that all future maintenance allotments be calculated a inimum of $1,500.00 per mile, rather than the current 25% allotment, unless the City the Department otherwise. The City of Shakopee understands that tl- on cannot be made until the 1995 apportionment due to the December 16 deadline for m visions to the maintenance allotment. Sincerely, David E. Hutton, P.E. Public Works Director ' 1C A DEH/pmp STRAUS / � �� 0/ S CON t\1LNTtY PRIDE SLCE:S57 .:y H':..'cs_.r:-t Sou:h =r.dw. rc. ...r.r<.:a ^1 r5O F.=.X o 2„-•r-:S City of Shakopee Budget Status 8/29/94 1993 8/30/93 1994 8/29/94 Budget Actual Budget Actual Revenue 5,189,780 2,933,848 56.5% 5,303,000 2,729,000 51.5% Transfers in 613,784 140,224 22.8% 1,040,000 264,000 25.4% Total 5,803,564 3,074,072 53.0%- 6,343,000 2,993,000 47.2% Expenditures 5,589,720 3,322,000 59.4% 6,258,000 3,885,000 62.1% Transfers out 1,102,265 Total 6,691,985 3,322,000 49.6% 6,258,000 3,885,000 62.1% Net (888,421) (247,928) 85,000 (892,000) 1995 Budget Expenditures 5,719,000 15% 858,000 Beginning Fund Balance 1/1/94 1,565,800 Assume that 1994 result is positive Amount available 707,800 .^IcD co cJ�co cD co1:o1coCO CO ' cD c0 cO•.DiCO1p;CO;b CO b w ? W N - ;(O 1 V_Ci) CT A Gi G NIS O cD COIN CT)1CT,A W r..)1-, a) 'c, ..'; M D 69,61696969161 -6916,4696469,I I . o ,� _ o AICs -> W G,I_. Vlsij r �69 n g i *\\: C7 cO 0 N — 0 O .a C) C) COI — \-—\`\� .'r`.` (C C) co V b j N m O -.-• W N;c., - w. O A N U CO VIA W W Cr) W j -a :.\ r C., C) CO Cn C> O W p A j L1 O I W cD :" W I--.. O N O Ui cD,j cD O O b 7, ' 7 iI I r , NJ y Q \?�;. W:A N -COCo W W -CA)iW W C.)FW _ *:F.:: 0', 0 V NJ U' Cn C1, On c., Cn Cn < U,I O c0 - CJ _^ ` W W "W" (71 0 3Cn\ WIC W NJ 0 0 0 'n 0 ,..} s. SP CO •V •C) V V 0 0 0 0 0 0,0 `v A ];:.4 — C) -•• N) A 0 0 0 0 0 0;0 k 0I? 63 I� -� m -� 69 69 EA EA EA EA EA 69 69 '� c°-9-..\, Isl 71 X a r 'kg CO W W CO CO O W (A Q> p '� X -. C)���. p O V A A N C) O - W N Cn 'i, \� p k.M. C:3 C) V U, co co V A W W p co:N N - :\� a� m .. �.. O N • O V W G7 ? CI, O W�� cp --` \\ m p O b N b cn co — co O o p �, 7, '.-.AN*..,.. t-�� C) _` \ 71 Z 6969 EA EA 696969 \� \ ` — Cn CO N N (0 -+ sEA6'9EAEA ;a:., C) CO) :`\ z c.T1 cD N -, 0 Cn C.) C) U, W -' :='':" CO C - s -. EA>'.' ��'�� N > — N CO V W Cn 13-11-1 N C)--co C) = ` V\`\� U, CO Co -� -4 NJ 0 C.) NJ -+ -.11(n • E v� *4N r' O t. .,) V 0 W C) V b O C) N CO W\\, = -w t�:, `\_� O (,)V V Cn GW L, — ? O b C.)1 co M. \a \A _ co � OWONVCOVCOpp ` N� D t O\ O 73 6969 EA EA EA EA EA 69 EA 6971 c>J M -, CJ ? CO NJ N) N N N 7" ? `e }icy to b9 69 C.fl C fl N A A N N W I W N 0 "-? . D `� CO �\ O _ U) 0 V Co ->, N -. p 0 0 0 b (7, \ Q ' *\ _ C) -� c0 N 1 p C) C) C) . (D W C m A •V •W O N W -+ U7 N pIW :: pCj \ o m b co Cn co N C) O N GO (C I CO ' _ \ N •--1 69 EA 69 EA'EA\ < >\` &-.. C" 69EAE9E9E9E969 -“ -> -‘ NI0\ \\\\ � A Cn U, C) C)_V c0 -,_W CO V I c.71' :\\ * ' cv C) O U, N O 0 C.) -, c0 C) CO CO " < - > N co k . C) CO CO -� CO CO N CO CO Cn CO C) D — \0.��� W V C) CO L� Cn V W s Cn N U, b;' 0 � \ ..�� V V U'i W CA O U, O N O Cn O: ' ?7,: v \ \ CJ1 co O co co 0 0 0 U, 0 0 0 \ D EA EA EA EA EA EA EA-''�„ O EA EA EA EA 69 N CP "' `\.` 0 co V co 0 O -, N CO co co C), co 'o r,`- N C) b C) A N Cn A N CO CO -,:' + — D ``�p\\\ W C) U, b W -, -� O O c0 U, V ..: -� C) `� r \.. -- * O cD U, -, V W CO CD V CD N CO;:' co O C \ �\j W N Cn b N O N CO -, V N — W:; C) �3 0, C•) N U, C) A NJ C) 0 V CO CO CO ?;. -: . : 1 I \. \\.i a\�"i _• Avg . Annual Total Cost ($) -� N) W ,_1 . 01 0) co O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Co O O O O O O O O CO CD 0000 CO i -11 .4 & Cn 1I rn * I CO r Cil 1 5 . CD i II --0 CD _..1 1 , cDco . • 1 _ -10 .....4 . cp -G ...% 1 •■ iU a) _1 1 D -1 oo - •! CD ...% * O CD 41h co I ICD -C3 CD (0 I CD IO.) 1 ` CD cDCD : Avg . Annual Total Cost ($ ) -1 -1 N N w (.)..) -1 , 01 O C.31 O C 71 O Cal O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CO C0 ; 1 O 1 , (0 mmil i CO 00 , 1 O lin N -ii O 0 00 , x -� / —1 -< - ■ a) ma I a) co-1 co ■ o I II i I .__, J 3 1 OD � CO / I 1,11 CO 1 11o 1 ♦\\ :.,-,:,:: (0 (0 c0 CD (0 CD CO CD CD CD CO CO CO .' =, `\ CD CD CD CD CD CO CO CO co cc'co C')o co \': A w N -, O c0 CO v O SIA w N •om _::♦ ji; -.< i k\%..... W N O CD C37 V i Q1 (n A,W N \< 69 69 EA EA 69'\ Qo O \� O 0 Cn -L A w Cn A A CTI CO 69 -CO • A :�„ ♦�'�♦♦'-,&Z' .• CJI CD CO -+ A co -� O cn -I v A co `i- ON ED, O uj N A w w A Cn O cn \�:% i C � \,- A Cn Cr) 0 0 0 Cr) 0 0 0 O :tic= a) 0 i A k.JO N V W N N N N N N N N ;; y C - * � �o (fl N) (T O OjOlC O OIL, W O , C N < ` \ \ ti EA co -� Cr) ;�.- ••'A �O 71 E. * 4' A (n O L, - L, L, L, 0 0,,0 O O .• yti\O O --..IA (n -I L, OHO O O Oj0 O O _'� \„� N M 69 EA EA EA 69 69 EA ->:< 03.7.-.... '\ 'p - - N) � � -< . Ks * \ r 69_ EA 69 EA EA_ ,,,. Cn --.-�-`\ CD "co A A O A A Cn W 69 -+ W A X �3'� .-,E.:6,-,.. :�♦ > N A co - co co -A O (T -I v A co N O :-'k to-,E 3 N W co —,. (.41.) A W co A Cn O (n N :` ♦ m 'co O N CD (T N �I W •v (n W W 1,1 ' �\\\.` -) A co co Cn (n co C� w W CO w w \a 7 ` `j C) m EA EA EA til t\ cri --• -L. -+ EA EA 69 EA EA 69 EA EA 69 69 n Cr)s \`= D A N O -I C7) (n A G) G.) co j W N - \g; O �. * ?:`-:. 1 Z -+ N CO CO A CO W CD A O O CO A :_,a) C B ,\ k...<. N D :, *V..- CO (O0 (On rn A o CO Gw.) (0 m - rn (.n `- 3 �\ *\'” -< A O i,.) .- -� i3) W in 4 O A O �) "_ \ (n A co v v N -.I CD co o I A a) w : `♦\ \"� = (J) �.c � ; IP a D \ vs1 O EA 69 69 69 69 `': CD EA 69 EA EA 0) 69 EA EA! '.v po D 3.:g.-/1...,; O .= V) O o m I-.l -1 �l a) a) CT -....Co - - >wX&CO::;<.:' -, _ CO -+ A CO N I N CT CO a)I O -- co :: J -I -! N v co co � Cn Cn co O co Cn -,::,‘<:= '''-ti >=:=<> � m \ ->; = m ♦ v-vv: O A W O N SIN O 'co c),,•. co -) _ _ .:',..iii,. .,:K] N -•I N A CAI 0 0 (n 0 Co W Co - �c C� -� M-4 EA EA < _-;*i*,. , .>..��a <. 69 69 EA 69 69 69169 69 69 EA 69 -� N .. _ : O Ni N N N W w A (n CA CO N Cn - �\ * :::: 0 CD W (njcO NCO N A (n co J '> .vv . . -) A CO -I Cn -+ .I CO A N 1J (n C] >- O.\ coNv . . . W (n . . . .• A C7 = O 'co a) A NAIa) OoCnjW OO C.-/-O w A 0 — (n w -I O O.W O O \ \�'s I `n *-si < , ;» EA EA ,, ;.off !EA EA 69691 EA 69:69 69 69 69 169 -> N -a O •• - E` I'W CO W CO WIWjAIA (n vjCD A -4 co v > '>nj * O - N W Cn CDIN -co -co ��(n N + \ co Q) CA -I (n V A co A N co v v co - C) L. .O* O co* VI O (0 O Cr) W A -, Co -.I -. O (0 . O O r::: : NO N (fl O W OIC:) N v Cn CO O v .. Ute'. �- O Cs) Cn A N (1 0INIS Cn 01- W (n) - '; �� wIaa- 4: I.\\C Avg . Annual Total Cost ($) -� N N W 01 O 01 O C31 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CO 001 /1111 ((..(:))0 mml 00 1119 CO I 0 c) CO _ -< - (.0N -1 00 - 00 O 11\1) co _(.0 (0 - I _ AlW'N _< •:: ' . O O' m .•0 \A; Co DCTi A W N , I • Erg O ;` -:< t` `� , nay �a > a 4t_, 64 � rn :- O ,t,31:;::::? NO Co N v -4 :-M N . * '-..1CA O � •c0\� n :.> Co IN -4lW � ,.r� fi 1.. C) `:ice' '`' :'<v q\t\', _u \i EA ::4 - ::- aN' N m O •--.>. \\\ 0 , .. 0 M. :':i�s` { 1 N O O -.l O ..,:-...,,.k ti:;_ _ ,,i,-,.,..s„, co i t*--,..-, — 64 64 64 64 c 01 C 4. \ * r W co CO co O',,,,,,, - O • ..*, C) O � c0 �! O �,N ,, CO CIt O •O (0'_`:1 • (gyp n C 3 A m •:rss, ,„ \ ` _, ,,i...., ,:, A W N \ O C c * . Z -4 W N-Cr, 0) \-0) C - `� N D A (A W cn O' ', J O : � a O — \\-� R\ CA • ati-.a C ,l * -:':�, (n 7 7 Al ;:. Ef9 EA 69 Erg E>A \� Qp a�:'.�:�:;: CO (bC)ov0)�\ D Cor o ^ CI) cornAo .O K _ '\ * ` = (v0 \\ '`' -� m W N A Cr, -4 s; , �. 0 :moi VJ O v __‘.In w 01:�\z:._ v D •ico\� .. N.) (P W O( —,: 0 W A CO N (A c\\ n O * \ N O Cr) O O .\ OO -1 0 0 O C (/) O «:st ` Nk` ` ,.....„. › .:,,,,, -. N W A cow\• -• O(P \ � co N O Cr) (.0 :zz co o) �\ *a<` * 1 0) CO W O N t = `\ NO W (fl -, A N A._,..s . O C '''';',,,..1/4:1 Es.:. p. 47 `a NW A J N CO: ..� W N -., CP :> : —• b O i;:0. �_ Avg . Annual Total Cost (S) 0 CD CD 0 0 CD CD 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 OCD0000 CO (CI 0 CO - 1 Q J Cl. CO CD cp./ - - r-- . o CD CO 1 Printed by Eileen 8 24/94 9:19am From: Gregg To: Eileen tj #Slidp— Subject: HCP ----NOTE 8/24/94 8:55am------------------- --- For 1994 HCP contracts, do you have (make copies) of the bid awrad for compact pickups, compact and intermediate admin cars. Is there an HCP contract for leasing admin cars? / yV St, 6 - 60iN,c. titi1,, - co e9 n A,,`cI s - ,0 I y' vv d,4 f A S� ch,,,o� 9 7�p, / 0 � Col - Ad m,IA. - -l .�.�. c,6 , C�.va 1.'� B22S 4 :_t-,\-/,,,t vnecY�k?e - AlmM •- RL _ Ar-okc 7 povciitexc_ G - S'F . // .:Fz C> s10 ,6 8r_silo N 1.4.040.-- X,.s� �2 �c XYZ �3yN0 S !D >4, Z Nla32- s -f3s7t, a _ .Z,t yo - ?yam %3 5.�b.n+ /8_f s�o = s 344- I.•� TENTATIVE AGENDA SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AUGUST 30, 1994 Mayor Gary Laurent presiding 1] Roll Call at 7 : 00 p.m. 2] Approval of Agenda 3] 1995 Fire Department Budget 4] 1995 Park and Recreation Budget 5] Operation of Aerators on Lake O'Dowd 6) Other Business 7] Adjourn Dennis R. Kraft City Administrator August 24, 1994 Mayor and Council Members City of Shakopee Jim Theis Rose Menke Town Board of Louisville Township Town Board of Jackson Township 956 West 150th Street 1060 Oak Road Shakopee, Mn 55379 Shakopee, Mn 55379 Dear Council and Town Board Members, Enclosed is the Fire Department budget request for 1995 in detail. City Council has seen only the total amount of the request for discussion at the 8/25/94 committee of the whole meeting. All three bodies addressed above are receiving the detail of the fire budget at the same time. Also enclosed is the Five Year Equipment List for the Fire Department. The telesquirt truck for $350,000 has been/will be moved by Council from 1995 to 1996. The $30,000 utility vehicle will be dropped per the Fire Chief. Site acquisition and construction for a second station are not included in the Fire Department's budget. If there are questions or concerns the Town Boards wish to address they may contact Dennis Kraft or myself. Sincerely, L.,// crLgo and Finance erector GV:mmr Enc. City Shakopee Projected Fire Service Shared Costs August 1994 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Budget Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. Budget Personnel $147,760 176,280 183,331 190,664 198,291 206,223 Supplies & Services (w/o ambul) 90,550 107,700 112,008 146,488 152,348 158,442 Capital (w/o big trucks) 50,000 24,500 35,000 18,000 49,000 28,000 Subtotal 288,310 308,480 330,339 355,153 399,639 392,664 Less Fuel (4,000) (4,200) (4,368) (4,543) (4,724) (4,913) Less Total Wages (93,730) (111,000) (115,440) (120,058) (124,860) (129,854) Plus Officer Salary 16,420 16,420 16,420 16,420 16,420 16,420 Subtotal 207,000 209,700 226,951 246,972 286,475 274,317 Add 1993 ladder Delay 109,755 109,755 109,755 109,755 0 Interest 26,341 19,756 13,171 6,585 0 Add 1992 pumper 45,000 45,000 45,000 0 0 0 Interest 8,100 5,400 2,700 0 0 0 Add 1996 telesquirt 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 Interest 16,800 12,600 8,400 Add 1996 pumper 52,000 52,000 52,000 52,000 Interest 12,480 9,360 6,240 Add 1997 pumper 52,000 52,000 52,000 Interest 12,480 9,360 260,100 396,196 526,162 573,178 611,255 472,317 Add prior budget overage 7,194 0 0 0 0 0 Less prior budget underspent 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total to allocate 267,294 396,196 526,162 573,178 611,255 472,317 City standby fee $245,580 364,011 483,419 526,616 561,599 433,948 Jackson standby fee 10,308 15,280 20,292 22,105 23,574 18,215 Louisville standby fee 11,405 16,906 22,451 24,457 26,082 20,154 City share of value 91.88% 91.88% 91.88% 91.88% 91.88% 91.88% Jackson share of value 3.86% 3.86% 3.86% 3.86% 3.86% 3.86% Louisville share of value 4.27% 4.27% 4.27% 4.27% 4.27% 4.27% City Value 13,359,375 13,359,375 13,359,375 13,359,375 13,359,375 13,359,375 Jackson Value 560,770 560,770 560,770 560,770 560,770 560,770 Louisville Value 620,443 620,443 620,443 620,443 620,443 620,443 14,540,588 14,540,588 14,540,588 14,540,588 14,540,588 14,540,588 CITY OF SHAKOPEE 1995 BUDGET Division Budget Object 1992 1993 1994 Y-T-D DEPARTMENT PROPOSED Code Description ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET 07/31/94 REQUEST BUDGET 001 -GENERAL FUND DIVISION 32 - FIRE 4101 WAGES FT REG 3,115 3,021 3,730 2,034 6,000 0 4110 WAGES - TEMP 60,962 66,647 90,000 50,251 105,000 0 4121 PERA 139 136 170 91 270 0 4122 FICA 439 1,190 1,150 882 1,310 0 4124 FIRE PENSION 25,191 48,290 43,410 0 43,400 0 4125 MEDICARE 683 0 0 0 0 0 4131 HEALTH & LIFE 170 0 300 0 300 0 4151 WORKERS COMPENSATION 7,953 7,680 9,000 9,459 20,000 0 PERSONNEL SERVICES 98,652 126,964 147,760 62,717 176,280 0 4210 OPERATING SUPPLIES 7,191 9,823 11,000 4,734 21,550 0 4222 MOTOR FUELS & LUBRICANTS 2,180 1,805 4,000 1,639 4,200 0 4230 BUILDING MAINT 597 5,657 9,000 253 11,000 0 4240 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 5,832 9,160 17,000 6,310 19,000 0 4310 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,852 28,797 33,000 15,668 33,000 0 4320 POSTAGE 58 14 100 0 100 0 4321 TELEPHONE 1,528 1,664 1,800 900 1,800 0 4330 TRAVEL/SUBSISTENCE 2,031 1,771 2,000 1,257 2,000 0 4350 PRINTING/PUBLISHING 402 40 650 0 650 0 4360 INSURANCE 22,207 22,603 22,000 18,672 22,000 0 4380 UTILITY SERVICE 8,813 10,852 8,000 4,737 8,400 0 4390 CONFERENCE/SCHOOL/TRAINING 2,530 5,945 10,000 4,071 12,000 0 4410 RENTALS 0 91 0 0 0 0 4433 DUES 315 380 1,000 195 1,000 0 4435 SUBSCRIPTIONS/PUBLICATIONS 0 95 0 0 0 0 SUPPLIES & SERVICES 57,536 98,697 119,550 58,436 136,700 0 4550 EQUIPMENT 247,427 16,164 598,000 575,743 374,500 0 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 247,427 16,164 598,000 575,743 374,500 0 TOTAL FIRE DIVISION 403,615 241,825 865,310 696,896 687,480 0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Fire Fire Hose 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 Hazardous Material Suits 9,000 Rescue Tools 10,000 Utility/Personnel Vehicle 30,000 Portable Radios 5,000 6,000 SCBA (Air Packs) 10,000 Air Tanks 6,000 SCUBA Equipment 6,500 Truck - Pumper 260,000 260,000 Truck - Grass Rig 35,000 Truck - Telesquirt 350,000 Hover Craft 20,000 Mobile Data Terminals 10,000 10,000 subtotal 374,500 338,000 278,000 49,000 28,000 Fire 1995: SCUBA Equipment. Diving gear to allow under water rescue of victims trapped under water or under ice. Also used for the recovery of drowning victims. Fire Hose. Replacement of aged and worn fire hose and fittings. The budget amount has been increased to meet the needs of the amount of hose and an increase in price. Truck - Telesquirt. This truck will be a cost effective addition to station number two because of its multi- function capability. it will provide high level water application for large incidents such as industrial and barn fires. Also hazardous material incidents without the cost of a second aerial apparatus. It will also serve as a triple combination pumping engine at the new station. Mobile Data Terminals. Installation of Mobile Data Terminals in two phases, first phase 1995 second phase 1998 . They will provide improved communication by providing routine emergency and non emergency information via a data display instead of voice. Information such as addresses, directions and other preplan information can be displayed and saved on a computer screen thus reducing misinformation and repeating over and over again. This will also cut down on radio traffic which will allow the use of our present system longer. 1996: Portable radios. Add one and replace several of the old portable radios with speaker/microphone type units. Additional radios are needed because presently officers can not communicate with all of the fire fighting teams needed at a large or severe fire. Fire Hose. Replacement of aged and worn fire hose and fittings. The budget amount has been increased to meet the needs of the amount of hose and an increase in price. Truck - Grass Rig. Replace 1983 truck and tank/pump unit. Truck has seen heavy use and maintenance is expected to increase. Also the truck is very underpowered for its intended use. Truck - Pumper. This is a replacement for the 1976 pumper. The 1976 General was removed from first line service in 1992 due to its age and condition. In 1996 the pumper will be 20 years old and condition will have to be degraded to replacement status. Utility/Personnel Vehicle. Department vehicle to be used for transportation of fire personnel and equipment to and from fires, training, rescues and other department functions. The 1994 personnel vehicle will be used primarily as a Chief's first response unit. 1997 : Truck - pumper. This is an addition to station 2 due to area growth and demand. Fire Hose. Replacement of aged and worn fire hose and fittings. The budget amount has been increased to meet the needs of the amount of hose and an increase in price. Rescue Tools. This is a Jaws of Life and Heavy Rescue Cutter which will be placed on a Pumper apparatus in the new fire station for more adequate coverage of the eastern part of the city. 1998: Fire Hose. Replacement of aged or worn fire hose and fittings to meet safety standards. Hazardous Material Suits. Hazardous material suits (2) to replace the two existing viton suits which were donated in 1986. These suits are used as initial entry into chemical spills or leaks for rescue or mitigation purposes. Portable Radios. Add 1 and replace several older portable radios with speaker/ microphone type units with appropriate channels. These units will be more appropriate for aggressive interior fire operations. SCBA (Air Packs. ) & Air Tanks. Additional self contained breathing units due to additional manpower, equipment and replacement of worn units acquired in 1985. Also to replace composite tanks which will not meet D.O.T. requirements. Mobile Data Terminals. Installation of Mobile Data Terminals in two phases, first phase 1995 second phase 1998 . They will provide improved communication by providing routine emergency and non emergency information via a data display instead of voice. Information such as addresses, directions and other preplan information can be displayed and saved on a computer screen thus reducing misinformation and repeating over and over again. This will also cut down on radio traffic which will allow the use of our present system longer. 1999 Fire Hose. Replacement of aged and worn fire hose and fittings. The budget amount has been increased to meet the needs of the amount of hose and an increase in price. Hover Craft. This will replace our present unit that will be 15 years old. Improvements in hover craft design that are already available, will make the replacement unit more versatile, monviotrable and safer. MEMO TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Barry A. Stock, Assistant City Administrator RE: Recreation Budget - Township Contribution DATE: August 24, 1994 INTRODUCTION: For the past several years Jackson and Louisville Township officials have discussed with the City Council the possibility of covering a portion of the recreation budget costs. BACKGROUND: The Shakopee Recreation Department provides recreation programs to both Shakopee youth and adults . The vast majority of the recreation programs provided by the City require the participants to pay some type of fee for the program. Non-residents are also required to pay an additional $3 . 00 non-resident fee on top of a program' s base fee. For the past several years, the City of Shakopee has not required Jackson and Louisville residents to pay the non-resident fee. Jackson and Louisville Townships have contributed annually to the City to cover the cost of their residents who are participating in the City' s programs. In 1991 the City and the Townships first discussed options for determining what the appropriate contribution level would be for the Townships . In reviewing the minutes from the 1991 meeting it was, "the consensus to use the following formula for computing cost to Townships based on the number of participants per activities : Recreation expenditures minus revenues times the ratio of participants per activities among: 1 . Jackson Township, 2 . Louisville Township, and 3 . City of Shakopee and those outside all three jurisdictions . Last year at our joint meeting it was suggested that City staff recalculate the number of Township residents utilizing City recreation programs in 1993 . These figures would be used as a baseline for determining an appropriate Township fee . Rather than recalculating the number of participants each year, it was also suggested that the baseline figure simply be increased by a standard inflationary amount each year for a three year period. (Township budget years 1995, 1996 and 1997) In January of 1997 the actual number of participants would be recalculated to determine if the baseline figure should be adjusted. If we apply this methodology to the actual number of Township residents participating in Shakopee for calendar year 1993 the appropriate contribution level for 1995 based on the 1994 Recreation budget would be as follows : Jackson Township - $ 7, 785 .28 Louisville Township - $ 4, 071 . 20 Since the Townships have already prepared their 1995 budget based on previous years contribution levels, it might be more appropriate to push back the aforementioned contribution amount until 1996 . For the following two calendar years (1997 and 1998) staff would simply propose a 3o inflationary increase to the 1996 base amount . Under this scenario the contribution amounts would be as follows: 1995 1996 1997 1998 Jackson - $2700 . 00 $7785 . 28 $8018 . 84 $8259 .40 Louisville - $1479 . 00 $4071 . 20 $4193 . 34 $4319 . 14 Attached is an analysis of the Recreation Department Budget . The analysis includes program participant statistics and historical contribution data. I want to point out that the recreation budget does not include funding for park maintenance . The recreation budget is simply for providing recreation programs and services. It also does not include cost associated with operating the Shakopee municipal pool . Staff is requesting the Township officials and City Council to discuss the proposed participation contribution formula (that was presented in 1991) and determine how it should be applied to future contributions to be paid by Jackson and Louisville Townships. Recreation Fee Analysis Actual Actual Actual Budget Proj . 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Recreation Expend. 171,209 196, 214 197, 160 206, 030 242, 580 Recreation Revenues 78, 958 87, 172 80, 006 82 , 810 88 , 160 Total Cost 92 , 215 104, 890 112,972 119, 041 150, 241 Program Participants 1991 1992 1993 Shakopee 3883 78 . 60% No figures 4582 84 . 90% Jackson 334 6.76% "" 353 6. 54% Louisville 201 4 . 06% "" 185 3 . 42% Other 522 10. 56% 11 277 5. 13% 4940 5397 Cost Allocation Based on 1991 Participation Formula 1991 Cost To Be Paid 1992 Cost To Be Paid 1993 Cost To Be Paid In 1992 by Twshp. In 1993 by Twshp. In 1994 by Twshp. Jackson - $6233 . 73 No Figures $9825.76 Louisville - $3743 . 93 11 $5138.24 Actual Amount Paid Actual Amount Paid Pojected Amount Paid by Twshp. in 1992 by Twshp. in 1993 by Twshp. in 1994 for 1991 Participants for 1992 Participants for 1993 Particpants Jackson - $2700. 00 $2700. 00 $2700. 00 Louisville - $1479. 00 $1479. 00 $1479. 00 Amount Proposed to Be Paid by Twshps for following years: 1995* 1996# 1997^ Jackson - $7785. 28 $8108 .84 $8259 .40 Louisville - $4017 . 20 $4193 . 34 $4319 . 14 * Based on 1993 participation and 1994 budget # Based on 1995 Contribution amount times 3% Based on 1996 Contribution amount times 3% tzS MEMORANDUM TO: Dennis R. Kraft, City Administrator FROM: Judith S. Cox, City Clerk SUBJECT: Operation of Aerators on Lake O'Dowd DATE: May 13, 1994 INTRODUCTION: The lease between the City and The Save O'Dowd Lake Chain Association requires that the Association carry liability insurance. The Association has asked that the City cover the operation of the aerators under their insurance policy and obtain the necessary permit from the DNR to operate the aerators. Since this request would involve a cost on the part of the City, it is appropriate to discuss the request when discussing the City's budget. BACKGROUND: Because of increasing costs to provide the electricity and carry the required insurance, the Association has advised that they are unable to generate the needed revenue to continue the operation of the two aerators on Lake O'Dowd within the City limits. They have ask the City to take over the operation of the aerators, obtain the required permits from the DNR and carry the required insurance under the City policy, see Exhibit "A" attached. The issues are three fold: cost, liability, and setting a precedent. 1) Although the Association is amenable to donating the aerators to the City, maintenance and replacement costs would need to be budgeted. 2) Although the aerators can be included under the City's insurance for little or no additional premium, the City will need to undertake certain precautions to minimize the opportunity for accidents. The City's loss control consultant has outlined the duties that the City must undertake to insure the safety of those persons who will frequent the area, see Exhibit "B" attached, they include: a) Signage b] Fencing c) Utilize a ground fault interrupter circuit d] Inspections and maintenance (with documentation) 3] If the City undertakes the operation of the aerators on Lake O'Dowd, would this be setting a precedence for similar requests? (Currently this is the only park property owned by the City of Shakopee abutting a lake. ) ALTERNATIVES: 1] Do not become involved with the operation of the aerators 2] Take over operation of aerators, totally 3) Take over operation of aerators if the adjacent township will participate in the cost. DISCUSSION: The City's insurance representative has advised that the City's insurance will not cover the aerators unless they are owned by the City. The Association has advised that there is a permit required from the DNR and that the applicant must carry the insurance. The City was advised by legal counsel (some years ago) that the City can not pay for the insurance premium for the Association. The Association has undertaken a pro-active stance in protecting and enhancing O'Dowd Lake, one of the stellar natural features in the City. This is taking place adjacent to City park property. Sometime in the future this park will be developed. Is it desirable for the City to continue the aeration until that time? Will the Association be able to continue the aeration until that time? They are saying that they can't keep up with the costs now! The request by the Association is not unlike the request by the Hockey Association who also provided something for the community until it became cost prohibitive. Is this the right time for the City to take over operating the aerators on Lake O'Dowd? 1995 BUDGET: The City is currently preparing the 1995 budget. Does City Council desire the cost for the operation of aerators to be included in the 1995 budget? We know that the electricity will cost in the neighborhood of $1, 300. Insurance premium will be minimal. The cost for operation, maintenance, and safety precautions will need to be estimated. RECOMMENDATION: Discuss and advise staff whether or not to budget for the operation of the aerators on Lake O'Dowd and to contact the DNR for the required permit. MEMOODOW.AER EXHIBIT "A" O'Dowd Lakes Chain Association,Inc. 14601 Lakeview Circle Shakopee,MN 55379 February 1, 1994 The immediate issue is insurance coverage for our organization and through our coverage, for any liability to which the city may be exposed. This year we will not run the aerators that prevent winterkill, or suffocation, of the fish. We don't have the money to pay the $1,300 electricity bill. We don't have the $1,400 to cover in- surance for the year's operations. Until a few years ago these costs were Iow enough to cover with the proceeds from our fishing contest and donations from other civic organizations in our community. The cost of insurance has risen over 1000% in the last 12 years. It has virtually put us out of business. Our annual fund raising event, the ice fishing contest, does not produce enough money to pay these two increasing expenses. Although we are taking steps to increase our revenue in future years, they will not be enough to raise the approximately$2,700 necessary to sustain us. There is no need for insurance this year because we are not operating the aerators. However, we would like to discuss options that could continue aeration in the future. Option 1: We ask the City for help by following the lead of Louisville Township. Louisville's policy cov- ers our aerator operation under its umbrella insurance coverage. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources requires this insurance in lieu of a $500,000 bond for aerator operation. A like arrangement with the City of Shakopee would free us of the insurance premium that threatens our survival. After speaking with the Township (Bill Deliwo) and an insurance agent, we think that the city's cost may not increase as the result, particularly considering our record of: 1. Safety, 2. No claims over a period of 12 years, and 3. Compliance with all rules, regulations and ordinances. Option 2: We would like the city to apply for the permit to operate the aerators. The DNR requires that a $500,000 a bond be posted or a liability insurance policy in that amount by the party applying for the permit to operate the aerators. If the party applying for the permit is a municipal orga- nization, the insurance is unnecessary, because such an organization cannot be held liable ac- cording to state law. At the same time, our organization would like to offer our services as a contractor to the city to install and operate the aerators. Why help us? What has this association done for the City of Shakopee? O'Dowd Lakes Chain Association has taken a pro-active stance in protecting and enhancing one of the stellar natural features in the City of Shakopee,Lake O'Dowd, as well as Thole Lake in Louisville Township. These lakes provide a significant asset for the community and for res- idential developers in the area. Lake O'Dowd forms an integral part of the Stonebrooke Golf Course. It's a favorite recreation spot in both summer and winter for outdoor activities. For those of you with longer memories, consider the stench of rotting fish from past years' winterkills. Think of the former threat of "swimmer's itch" and other bacteriological infesta- tions that seem to have subsided since the aerators began operating in January of 1981. This hasn't cost the city anything to date. And it isn't a fluke. The long term dedication of a few dedicated individuals keeps it going. We haven't asked much from the City in the past. We're not likely to ask much in the future. But we do need help now. Please consider our request for assistance with our insurance problem. Respectfully submitted, Mike Sulik President, O'Dowd Lakes Chain Association EXHIBIT "B". bBerkley- Risk Services, Inc. March 1, 1994 Mr. Gregg Voxland Finance Director City of Shakopee 129 South Holmes Shakopee, MN 55379-1376 Dear Mr. Voxland: I am sending this letter to review my recent meeting with you. This is in conjunction with the city's participation in the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust property and casualty program. My participation in this meeting was to give loss control advice. This advice is designed to help the city minimize possible city service hazards, protect city assets, and to help strengthen the city's defense if litigation is brought against the city for bodily injury or property damage. From our joint visit to the aeration site at Lake O'Dowd, I have come up with the following recommendations. We have found through our research at the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) and nationally that when municipalities comply with loss control recommendations- they can reduce the potential for loss. Please review the following recommendations. If you have any questions after reviewing these recommendations, please feel free to contact me. 1-2/94 It is my understanding that the city has been asked to possibly undertake insuring, monitoring and maintaining an aeration system in Lake O'Dowd. It is important that the city realize that to take on this responsibility would increase the city's liability. In aeration systems or open water areas on lakes, individuals have fallen in and, in some cases, drowned. Other individuals have lost vehicles which include snowmobiles and cars. If the city decides to take over the aeration program, the city must execute its responsibility of its duty to warn of hazards. The city should set out appropriate signs denoting thin ice. These signs should be located not only at the top of the hill near the aeration area, but also down by the lake. Thin ice signs also need to be placed on the lake ice far enough back from the aeration area to make sure that individuals either walking or driving snowmobiles have adequate room to stop. There should also be at least one sign on shore near the aeration area specifically denoting it as an aeration program on the lake. The exact language for this sign should be reviewed by the city's legal counsel before being erected. .�•.•� ......1 •'...;�. s.. .. • .. .i;.: zs, _ , 13 • • -121 3-6-,2;•) City of Shakopee March 1, 1994 Pace Two 2-2/94 Since snowmobiles and ice fishermen use the lake, the aeration area should be properly fenced with some type of snow fence or rubberized fence which can be easily seen at night. This would help reduce the possibility of anyone falling into the open water. 3-2/94 All electrical circuits to the aeration pump should be on a ground fault interrupter circuit (GFCI). By utilizing a GFCI the possibility of an electrical shock in a wet area will be reduced. 4-2/94 If the city decides to take on the aeration system, it should be aware that it will be responsible for inspecting and maintaining all work on the system. This inspection and maintenance also includes maintaining adequate signs for thin ice and aeration around the open water area. All inspection and maintenance should be properly documented and kept on file for future reference. The long-term benefits and successes that can be enjoyed by a cooperative, self-insurance organization depend upon serious and careful consideration of loss control recommendations. In that context we ask that you keep us informed of the steps you take to address these loss control recommendations. Therefore, please respond within 60 days of your receipt of this letter regarding the status of how you intend to respond to these loss control recommendations. Thank you for your continued efforts in the interest of loss control. We look forward to working with you. Sincerely, Mi hael Everist Senior Loss Control Consultant Berkley Risk Services, Inc. WME:eab c: Lee Henning Capesius Agency, Inc. First National Bank Building 129 South Holmes Street Shakopee, MN 55379 Recommendations and comments are provided for loss control and risk exposure improvement purposes only. They are not made for the purpose of complying with the requirements of any law, rule or regulation. We do not infer or imply in the making of these recommendations and comments that all sites were reviewed or that all possible hazards Here noted. The final responsibility for conducting loss control and risk management procrams must rest with the insured. SHAKOPE E May 20, 1994 Ms. Marion Schmidt, Chair Louisville Town Board 14275 Marystown Road Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Ms. Schmidt: Currently the City of Shakopee has a lease with the Save O'Dowd Lake Chain Association for the use of City property for the operation of aerators on Lake O'Dowd. Because of increased costs for insurance and electricity over the years, the Association is asking the City to take over the operation of the aerators. This includes the cost of maintenance of the aerators, providing electricity, obtaining permits from the DNR and undertaking certain safety precautions to insure the safety of persons frequenting the area - see enclosed letter from the City's loss control consultant. This request has been made to the City Council a number of times over the last three or four years. The City Council has consistently rejected taking on this added obligation. One of the options that staff is exploring is the possibility of Louisville Township and the City of Shakopee sharing in the cost of the operation of the two aerators on Lake O'Dowd, since the lake lies within both governmental jurisdictions. I am wondering if the Township would consider entering into an agreement with the City (for five years or so) sharing in the expenses for the maintenance and operation of the aerators. Cost for insurance would be minimal, since it would be added to the City policy. Electricity, signage, fencing, inspections and maintenance costs can only be estimated at this time. We estimate that the costs would be under $5, 000 per year. This alternative has not been taken to City Council. Before doing so, I wanted to check with Louisville Township to see if they might be willing to share in the costs to continue the aeration of O'Dowd Lake. Would you please discuss this with the Township Board and get back to me. I would appreciate hearing from you by the 1st of July if possible. The City Council will begin their 1995 budget discussions sometime in July and this needs to be a part of the budget discussion. Please call me if you have any questions about this matter. Sincerely, 4",-(414*) Dennis R. Kraft City Administrator CONL LN-I Y PRIDE SLNCE 1857 2 ..n1 esS:rretSou:h Sh2kopee,11: .aeao:a• 55379-151 t+?=-..=-..50 -i ._T,' -..