Loading...
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