03/12/1991 - City Council Special SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday,
March 12, 1991
5:30 p.m.
I. ROLL CALL
II. DRAFT 1991-1995 C.I.P.
III. OTHER BUSINESS
IV. ADJOURNMENT
•
MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
DATE: MARCH 7, 1991
SUBJECT: DRAFT FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM - MEMO #2
(1991 - 1996)
INTRODUCTION
At the February 26, 1991 Special City Council Workshop, a draft
five year capital improvements program (1991 - 1996) was presented
for discussion and further direction by the City Council. This
program, unlike the General Fund/Public Enterprise Operating
Budget, identifies capital programs and projects that are proposed
for the next five (5) years. Each capital project is the result of
a special study, such as the needs analysis that was completed for
the Municipal Center law enforcement building, master planning for
fire stations and park land development studies and many other
improvements relating to the community's infrastructure. Street
improvements, water and sewer utilities and storm water
improvements are examples of the infrastructure. Also included is
a five (5) year proposal for continued utilization of the Equipment
Revolving Fund.
At the City Council workshop the City Administrator was given
direction to categorize the spending by funding source and
illustrate some funding source options which would help the City
Council decide the planned capital spending for the next five (5)
years.
There are many considerations which include but are not limited to
extending the funding as proposed beyond the five (5) year period
of 1991 —1995, removing spending such as general fund budgeted
expenditures which include small capital, sealcoating and other
considerations from the draft five (5) year CIP. It is suggested
that for discussion purposes that a review of the draft five (5)
CIP expenditures and funding sources be categorized into two (2)
categories: So '' expenditures that are financed from
funding sources including community investment funds, GO bond
referendum, general fund, equipment revolving, park site fund, and
grants and projects that are financed from special
assessments, major street construction, user fees and franchise
fees.
The grand total of the five (5) year CIP is $45,424,042. Category
I, as described above is $21,874,993 while Category II is the
difference or $23,549,049. Attachment A entitled City Five Year
0 CIP Funding Source provides a funding source breakdown which
includes reference to proposed expenditures. This attachment,
/
FIVE YEAR CIP
S MARCH 7, 1991 .
PAGE TWO
again, separates expenditures and funding sources by category
making a distinction between those expenditures that are financed
traditionally by either a referendum or in the case of the City of
Eagan, the community investment fund combined with park site fund
and grants or the general fund and equipment revolving fund. The
other category pertains to infrastructure and those expenditures
and revenue sources will change according to development projects
and overall community growth during the next five (5) years. The
user fees that are included in Category II relate directly to the
water sanitary and storm sewer utilities and for that reason are
excluded as a property tax consideration in Category I.
FUNDING RESTRICTIONS BY REVENUE SOURCE
Before considering further analysis on acceptable planned
expenditure programs for the five (5) year CIP it is appropriate to
address funding restrictions by revenue source. The following is
an explanation of each funding source as listed in attachment A.
1. Community Investment Fund
According to the proposed ordinance (adoption scheduled for 3-
i19-91) 90% of the interest earnings on the community
investment fund asset are eligible for capital projects of
community wide benefit. The dollar limitation is based on the
growth of the principal and rate of interest the fund is
receiving through investment of this asset.
2. GO Bonds Referendum
Expenditures on eligible projects funded by the GO bond
referendum are those projects approved by voter referendum.
Dollar limitation is based on tax impact of debt service
levies. Careful scheduling is important when considering the
use of a GO bond referendum.
3. General Fund
Expenditures are limited to municipal remodeling, facility
enhancement and small equipment that does not qualify for the
major equipment revolving fund.
The dollar limitation is the impact on utilization of revenues
to finance operations in the general fund.
4. Equipment Revolving Fund
For the most part the equipment revolving fund finances
vehicular equipment ranging from police cars to a dump truck
FIVE YEAR CIP
MARCH 7, 1991
PAGE THREE
to a road grader. Expenditures that are eligible include new
and replacement. The dollar limitation is based on tax impact
of debt service levies similar to the GO bond referendum.
There is no referendum required since equipment revolving fund
has been financed through a general fund levy and equipment
certificates. This CIP assumes that equipment certificates
and not any tax dollars restricted by levy limitation will be
the funding source behind the equipment revolving fund.
5. Park Site Acauisition and Development Fund
Park acquisition and development are eligible expenditures
under the park site acquisition and development fund. The
dollar limitation is based on development activity. According
to state law these monies cannot be used for operating costs.
6. Grants
Because of new federalism and the lack of available revenue at
both the federal state governments, there are few grants left
to cities. Historically, grants have been provided for
eligible and approved projects that relate directly to land
and open space or park land improvements.
• The dollar limitation commitment to the City is to match
funding requirements.
The following four (4) funding restrictions by revenue source
identify expenditure projects and revenues identified in Category
II is illustrated in attachment A.
7. Special Assessments
The only expenditures that are eligible are projects that
according to statutory provisions are assessable. The dollar
limitation is the extent the major street fund can participate
in financing a project and proving the benefit of a special
assessment.
8. Major Street Fund
Expenditures that are identified as a part of the major street
fund include specific streets and signal lights. Also
included is a portion of the funding for sealcoating city
residential and collector streets. The dollar limitations are
based on state aid funds, road unit charges and other revenue
sources that limit the financing capacity.
•
FIVE YEAR CIP
MARCH 7, 1991
PAGE FOUR
9. User Fees
As. previously stated, user fees are applicable to water,
sanitary sewer and storm drainage utilities. The dollar.
limitation is the user rate fees that are collected.
10. Franchise Fees
Cable franchise fees are restricted to expenditures that are
cable related. There is a dollar limitation on revenue
availability according to retained franchise fees.
In order to approve the 1991 - 1995 capital improvements program
there are certain public policy issues that require direction by
the City Council. . As an example, establish a level of spending,
prioritize capital projects and determine long term objectives.
The projects identified in Category I, for the most part, are to be
financed through the community investment fund or by GO bond
referendum although some would probably not be eligible for the
community investment fund. Those projects are as follows:
• •
Law Enforcement/Municipal P al Center
Expansion $2,530,000
• Ice Arena/Outdoor Swimming Pool $5,500,000
• Park Improvements $4,045,500
• Fire Department Improvements $3 .943.000
TOTAL $16,018,500
Assuming the community investment fund is adopted as presented at
the February 26 work session, there will be approximately $4.8
million for spending. This assumes a 6% rate of interest at 20
years. The first of the policy decisions is to prioritize the
capital needs following presentations by the City staff. Options
include scaling back projects such as reducing the scope of the law
enforcement/city hall expansion, eliminating a component of the
proposed ice arena/outdoor swimming pool and reducing the scope or
delaying the park land improvements as presented. This principle
also applies to the proposed fire department capital needs ash
presented. In other words, twommessidmosiriammareadiaisialibmin
consequentl t, • -xt •ublic •olicy question
- _..
e is - . . w i c- _ . _ . 11 . - • ,- • .,. n
al
• . - - • -yon. _ . -
•
FIVE YEAR CIP
MARCH 7, 1991
PAGE FIVE
The capital projects discussed to date are new facilities or
expanded facilities. Also included in Category I is the general"
fund and equipment revolving fund columns which need to be
addressed during the CIP process. The general fund is evaluated as
a part of the general operating fund budget on a year to year
basis. The major expenditure is sealcoating. The equipment
revolving fund is currently financed by a general fund property tax
levy and the ongoing sale of equipment certificates. It is
advisable that a level of spending be determined for this column by
balancing sensitivity to the property tax levy and need for
replacement and new equipment for maintaining a delivery of
service. The other columns that were added in Category I include
the park site fund and grants. If the City Council feels that an
aggressive park land development program would increase operations
and maintenance costs, park land capital needs may be limited to
the amount of revenue available in both the park site fund and
grant programs. However, this policy limitation may cause a
serious restriction on the amount of programs that can be offered
by community athletic teams, the tot lot programs and other
recreation activities.
SUMMARY
In summary, the major public policy issues relate directly to
Category I and, in order to assist in a better understanding of the
capital needs that are proposed, Chief Southorn will discuss the
proposed fire station expenditures, the Director of Parks and
Recreation will review the capital park land improvements and Chief
Geagan, along with the City Administrator, will discuss the
proposed municipal center law enforcement expansion.
The City staff has considered alternatives if capital spending of
any of the facilities presented is to be excluded, delayed or
modified. By the nature of the definition of Category II projects,
the extent and timing of those projects is tied directly to
development activity. Consequently, .this memo has not attempted to
define or explain those projects in more detail. The Director of
Public Works will be available to summarize the type of capital
programs that are referenced in Category II.
.11\
City Administrator
TLH/j eh
cc: Department Heads
111
• •
0
o PA 0 r r r r I-,
� d is W N h-' i
0 0 co 1.-+ N N N n
O
O O
0 I-- 1-' W ~ V N -V q
W 00 It I +O 0 pp
0 0 F-I
p y
' 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 l'
H V F-+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 ' ' to
ct I--■ 0' rt
�
o w pll
CO
VI w N O
w co
In I I I .0 O' K to N
o 0 0
{n -Ca to I I I 0 W
Lnw � 0 00 0o g 0
•
N .� V
• • .P. V
F• N N
l!t 01 0 N V CO
4�
..� „� � 0 N 0 O. W po
NSW In O V+ 0 0 0 W
O O O
0 O 0 p' P
r
w
'I 0' CO CO V 41
In CO is '.o CO w DI
co o. I--' w to to
C '
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 b
C)
I- H
co e a
0 � V V o ,2:1 n N V C
•C n
° art w ~ h PA..i co o 0
E I
co
Z
0 H
H
b H
0 '_' P z t
o I ' O I p
p 0 0 0 K H VI
O 0 t 0
p 0 00 60 ')
cn
O
F—, 0 ,.e
I- I-1 f✓ N N N 0
N Ln VD CO t,n pt. y
tXI
CT N 'D W 0 I-' N li
CO 0e 0 w 4: W to C - V
O ..O is I-. '.0 fit A
W V OT In 4, F-'
O CT W w 0 CT
1 1
01 I-. h-' N
ON N In In 4- V y
W t„n .0 lr - CO W
o W VD V '0 0 A C 03 pi
%.0 CO N W FP-' rt
FS
%.0 '.0 ON 4- 0 0
VI N Ir ,
VI o V t„n U' ....4 0
O 0
O 0 0 0 0 N A
K
w 0 0 0 0 w ►+i I
O 0 0 0 0 0 A
to
W 0,
ITS
' I I 0 O Ft
O 0 0 �
t 0 0 0
0 0 I..•
CO
A
4` r F✓
t.n V O' W W
� 0 � rO M� ln O O 't 0
4- N V N I-1 0 ~ Q' I 1
N co W W 0 0%
ATTACHMENT I - DETAIL
•
SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY INVESTMENT AND
G.O. REFERENDUM (COLUMN 1 AND COLUMN 2)
Community G.O.
Investment Bond
Protect Fund Referendum
1991
Law Enforcement Arch $ 30,000
Ice/Pool 2,750,000 $2,750,000
Park Improvements 486,500
1992
Law Enforcement 2,500,000
Fire Station 6, Station 2
and Equipment 2,865,000
Park Improvements 1,484,000
1993
Fire Administration Remodel 425,000
Fire Opticom Signalization 343,000
Park Improvements 442,500
1994
Fire Station 3 Exp. 185,000
Park Improvements 569,500
1995
Fire Station 1 Remodel 125,000
Park Improvements 1,063,000
$8,433,000 $7,585,500
Summary
Law Enforcement $2,530,000 $2,530,000
Ice/Pool 2,750,000 $2,750,000 5,500,000
Fire 1,078,000 2,865,000 3,943,000
Park Improvements 2.075.000 1,970.500 4 .045.500
$8,433,000 $7,585,500 $16,018,500
1� �ot�. QvJa _ �tio
Z, tko #o
3) 1,00 k. 62 s+es... 4n;o f Cd s c e 4_ Co o16 ._ s s - .
ATTACHMENT I - DETAIL
• GENERAL FUND (COLUMN 3)
Department • 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 ,
Description:
Community Dev. #07
Parking Lot $24,000
Ramp/Painting 14,000
Fire Admin Rem. $25,000
Orr House Storage $20,000
Orr Property
Demolition $30,000
$113,000 Total
Police #11
Outdoor Range 20,000
Indoor Range 15,000
$ 35,000 Total
Fire #12
Station Irrigation 25,000
$25,000 Total
Engineering #21
Vehicle Replace (Insp.) 12,000 12,000 12,000 $12,000
• $48,000 Total
Streets #22
Sealcoating 50,000 161,300 184,500 33,350 43,000
$472,150 Total
Central Services #24
Equipment 15,000 10,000 7,000
Copier 25,000
$57,000 Total
$750,150 $88,000 $273,300 $226,500 $100,350 $62,000
S/C $472,150 $50,000 $161,300 $184,500 $ 33,350 $43,000
Other 278,000 38,000 112,000 42,000 67,000 19,000
$750,150 $88,000 $273,300 $226,500 $100,350 . $62,000
•
g9.
ATTACHMENT I - DETAIL
• EQUIPMENT REVOLVING (COLUMN 4)
Department 1991 1992 1993 994 1995
Description:
Administration #02
• Vehicle Replacement $. 13,000
$ 13,000 Total
Data Processing #03
Computer Equip. $ 55,560 $ 126,600 $ 58,700 23,700 $ 19,200
$ 283,760 Total
Finance/City Clerk #05
Equipment 10,000 73,030.
$ 83,030 Total
Community Dev: #7
Vehicle Replacement 13,800 14,000 15,000 15,000 15,000
Lawn Irrigation 25,000
Vehicle New 15,000 15,000
$127,800 Total
Police #11
Copy Machine 7,000
Marked Vehicles 102,920 130,000 140,500 130,500 130,500
Unmarked Veh. 28,000 43,500 72,500 58,000
Other Vehicles 22,000 17,000 20,000
Polygraph 10,000
$ 912,420 Total
Fire #12
• Unit Replacement 130,000 100,000 205,000
Air Salvage Unit 95,000
$ 530,000 Total
Engineering #21
Survey Van Replace 16,000
Copier 15,000
Passenger Veh. Rep. 13;000
$ 44,000 Total
Streets #22
Equipment 21,000 55,000 220,000 70,000 62,000
Vehicles 122,000 136,000 108,000 108,000 111,000
$1,013,000 Total
Central Services #24
Equipment 26,500
$ 26,500 Total
•
•
Page 2 of 2
• EQUIPMENT REVOLVING (COLUMN 4)
Department 1991 1992 .1993 1994 1995
Pescription:
larks & Recreation #31
Equipment 66,500 62,000 57,000 76,000 58,000
Vehicles 110,500 83,000 76,000 118,000 13,000
$ 720,000 Total
$3,753,510 $535,780 $785,630 $893,700 $851,700 $686,700
•
•
11111
0
•
ATTACHMENT I - DETAIL
• PARR SITE FUND (COLUMN 5)
Project 1991 1992 1993 1994 , 1995
Park Acquisition
and Development $600,000 $150,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
Assessments - New 29,110 17,248 9,212 7,263
TOTALS $1,112,833 $600,000 • $179,110 $117,248 $109,212 $107,263
GRANTS (COLUMN 6)
No Additional Breakdown
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS (COLUMN 7)
No-Additional Breakdown
MAJOR STREET (COLUMN 8)
Project 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
Streets $2,263,110 $1,237,180 $ 470,674 $ 511,246 $1,172,089
Signals/Lights 392,500 177,250 11,750 13,100 6,800 •
Sealcoating 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000
TOTALS $6,630,699 $2,730,610 $1,489,430 $ 557,424 $ 599,346 $1,253,889
( (
•
ATTACHMENT I - DETAIL
• USER FEES (COLUMN 9)
Department 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
Description:
Water
Wells $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000
Reservoir 1,600,000
Various Projects 245,000 210,000 63,000 35,000 20,000
Sanitary Sewer
Various Projects 85,000 40,000 45,000 15,000 '
Storm Sewer
Various Projects 252,300
Maintenance Bldg. 700,000
TOTALS $1,032,300 $700,000 $558,000 $500,000 $2,770,000
FRANCHISE FEES (COLUMN 10)
• 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
City Council
Chambers Televising. $60,000
Sound System $30,000
TOTALS $90,000 $60,000 $30,000
•
/ Ca