09/14/2006 - City Council SpecialAGENDA
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
THURSDAY
SEPTEMBER 14, 2006
5:30 P.M.
EAGAN ROOM -CITY HALL
I. ROLL CALL AND AGENDA ADOPTION
II. VISITORS TO BE HEARD
1, ~ .III. CANVASS BALLOTS FOR SEPTEMBER 12, 2006
PRIMARY ELECTION (MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
CANDIDATES ONLY)
Q a, IV. WINDOW SIGN TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION
V. PROPOSED 2007 PUBLIC UTILITY ENTERPRISE
.~.~,~Q VI. CASCADE BAY BUDGET
BUDGETS:
^ Water
^ Sanitary Sewer
^ Street Lighting
^ Storm Drainage
^ Water Quality
n ~~ VII. EAGAN COMMUNITY CENTER BUDGET
VIII. OTHER BUSINESS
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Agenda Memo
September 14, 2006
Special City Council Meeting
III. CANVASS BALLOTS FOR SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 PRIMARY ELECTION
(MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATES ONLY)
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
Certify the results of the September 12, 2006 Municipal Primary Election
FACTS:
• State law provides that within two days after the primary election, the governing body of
the municipality shall canvass the returns, and the two candidates for each office who
receive the highest number of votes, or a number of candidates equal to twice the number
of individuals to be elected to the office, who receive the highest number of votes, shall
be the nominees for the office named.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Election results will be distributed at the meeting on Thursday.
Agenda Information Memo
September 14, 2006
City Council Workshop
X. WINDOW SIGN TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION
DIRECTIOI~1 REQUESTED OF THE CITY COUNCIL:
To receive the recommendation of the Eagan Window Sign Task Force and to direct
consideration of the matter to the Advisory Planning Commission for consideration of an
amendment of the City Code section regulating window signage.
FACTS:
The Eagan City Code Section 11.70 establishes the standards under which signs
are regulated within the City of Eagan. As is the case with most local government
sign codes, Eagan's Code regulates the time, place, size and manner in which
signs may be displayed. The code has been applied to wall signs, monument
signs, pylon signs, directional signs and temporary signs for some time.
In 2005, the City Council directed the Advisory Planning Commission and staff to
study possible changes in the regulation of temporary signs and additional
regulation for window signage.
The City Council also directed the process to include communications with the
business community, which was done through the Chamber of Commerce and by
other means, to invite comment and input regarding the possible changes. The
Chamber and a number of businesses provided input during the Advisory
Planning Commission process: The Code amendment was adopted in the summer
of 2005.
In early 2006, City staff distributed a letter to business property owners advising
them of the changes. At that time, City staff and the Chamber of Commerce
received a number of questions and concerns regarding the implementation of the
new regulations for window signage. While prospective window sign regulations
were included in the communications distributed in 2005, a number of businesses
indicate that they were not aware of the actual consequences of the code
amendment for their businesses until the 2006 correspondence outlined the
process for compliance with the code.
In response to the concerns raised, the City Council took input from the business
community at a workshop meeting on March 14, 2006. At that time, the Council
directed the formation of a Task Force to revisit the window sign provisions that
had been adopted in 2005 to consider recommendations for retaining and/or
modifying the requirements. The Council directed staff to postpone enforcement
of those provisions until completion of the Task Force review. The Task Force
was appointed on March 21, 2006 and met between April 4 and June 6, 2006, at
which time a recommendation was prepared. The Council's workshop schedule
for the summer resulted in the item coming back to the Council for consideration
a
at this time.
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff memo of Septem er 7, 2006 summarizing Task Force recommendations on
pages through
Window Sign Task Force Meeting Notes on pages ~ through
City Attorney's memo of June 20, 2006 regarding implementation steps on pages
through ~.
Cily of Eagan Demo
TO: TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: JON HOHENSTEIN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE: SEPTEMBER 7, 2006
SUBJECT: WINDOW SIGN TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Eagan Window Sign Task Force completed its work on Tuesday, June 6, 2006
with consensus to forward a recommendation to the Eagan City Council for further
modifications of the City's Sign Ordinance as it pertains to window signs.
The recommendation that is forwarded to the Council includes the notes from the
Task Force meetings, this memo and a memo from the Cily Attorney's office dated
June 20, 2006 that overviews an implementation procedure for use at such time as
the amendment occurs.
The City Council's consideration of this recommendation is scheduled for its
workshop meeting of September 14. As we have discussed, the Council will then
direct the issue to the Advisory Planning Commission for a public hearing on the
amendments, after which the Commission's recommendation will be returned to the
Council for final action.
Task Fonre Recommendation
Over the course of the Task Force meetings, a consensus was reached on the
following recommendations:
• Removal of 4-6' clear zone restriction - It was concluded that visibility into
and out of businesses could be addressed through the percentage coverage
without a 4-6' clear zone.
• Up to 60% window coverage -The group concluded compromising at 60%
would balance the needs expressed by the participants.
• Window signs would be defined as a sign either applied to the inside surface
of a window or within 18° of the window surface. The group concluded that
a sign on the window or placid inside the business, but clearly visible
through the window, would meet the definition of a sign.
• Method of measurement -Staff provided information about the methods of
measurement of signs - in particular the concept of a shape enclosed by no
more than 12 sides. After this explanation, the consensus was that the
current approach to sign measurement is acceptable.
• Grandfathering - The group agreed that some mechanism for
grandfathering existing signage in excess of the 60% maximum should be
developed. The City Attorney's memo of June 20, 2006 outlines a proposed
implementation approach involving "exemptions" for properties that currently
exceed the 60% coverage with a phase out schedule under which all
properties would need to come into conformance with the new standards
within a set time period. The period of seven (7) years was recommended.
• Exemptions instead of permits - It appears that most businesses' existing
signage would comply with the 60% coverage standard. That being the
case, rather than implementing a permit process for a large number of
businesses that already comply, the recommended approach is the
exemption process for the much smaller number of businesses that cannot
or wish not to comply in the short term.
At the close of the Task Force's work, one open issue remained, which members
indicated would be addressed through the City Council and Planning Commission
consideration of the matter:
• Whether area of window signage will count toward the 20°~ maximum
signage permitted on a building side -One of the original reasons the
Council noted for considering window sign regulations was that the
permitted signage on the side of a building is 20% and some businesses use
both large building signs and a substantial amount of window signage, such
that the total signage for the business may exceed 20% of a building side.
In response, the original amendment of the sign code required the area of
window signs to be included within the 20% calculation for the wall side.
• The Task Force did not reach a conclusion on this issue, based on
discussion outlined in the Meeting Notes of June 6. .Business
representatives indicated a preference for not requiring window signs to fall
within the 20% calculation. Other participants suggested other positions.
• The Councilmembers participating in the Task Force indicated that this issue
should be presented for final recommendation and consideration by the
Planning Commission and Council.
Communication of Revised Window Sian Res~ulations
In 2005, the City used a variety of tools to communicate the potential changes to
the community at large and the business community. When businesses came
forward this winter regarding the changes, one of the questions was how best to
communicate any additional changes, moving forward.
The Task Force reviewed the following list of tools to determine whether any
additional means of distributing information about the amendments. The only
additional resource noted was to continue to use the mailing list that was compiled
from the group that attended the February Council workshop. That group received
notices of the Task Force meetings.
The following communication tools were used in 2005:
• Chamber of Commerce Weekly Email Updates
• Eagan Business Council Meetings
• Mayor's Breakfast
• Eagan Business News Newsletter
• City Newsletter
• City Website
• Direct mailings to businesses that had been the subject of enforcement
actions in the past
• Press Release -Stories were published in the Eagan Sun Current and
Pioneer Press
• Planning Commission Workshops and Regular Meetings
• Conversations with Businesses
As this matter is brought forward for further consideration by the Council and
Planning Commission, the same tools will again be used to communicate meeting
dates for those interested in participating in the discussions.
MEETING NOTES
WINDOW SIGAGE TASK FORCE MEETING
APRlL 4, 2006
Task Force members in attendance: Dave Perrier, Perrier Wines 8~ Spirits; Jack
Johnson, Cartridge World; Ruthe Batulis, NDC Chambers of Commerce; Buzz
Anderson, Minnesota Retailers Association; John Curlee, State Farm Insurance,
Advisory Planning Commission members Ted Gladhill and Gary Hansen; and City
Councilmembers Cyndee Fields and Mike Maguire.
Present in the audience: Wes Hallberg, Yocum Oil Company representative and
owner/operator of the Holiday Stationstore at Cliff and Thomas Center Drive, and a
representative of the Diffley/Lexington Great Clips.
City staff in attendance: Community Development Director Jon Hohenstein and City
Planner Mike Ridley.
Community Development Director Jon Hohenstein opened the meeting by providing
background information on the Sign Ordinance and the reason for the meeting today.
Cyndee Fields stated that she is aware the City needs to listen and is interested in
finding a balance between business needs and the City's needs.
Mike Maguire spoke about the need to find a balance between community needs and
the business needs as well.
Buzz Anderson asked where the Sign Ordinance came from and why. He stated that
he has lived in Eagan for over 15 years and has never heard any complaints about
signs.
Councilmember Fields responded that she has had concerns shared with her that are
not, typically, relative to a specific development item.
Councilmember Maguire echoed the same and stated he has has also received
complaints (mostly while attending civic events such as the 4th of July celebration) that
are not in writing but in passing where someone will mention a concern about too much
1
signage. That, in addition, he stated to the City Council's review regarding upgrading
material finishes in the commerciaUretail areas brought the window signage issue to
light while the Council was reviewing photos of same businesses, but located in
different cities.
Jon Hohenstein commented on the inception of the City Council's direction to the
Planning Commission to review window signage and the Council's desire to obtain a
level playing field.
Dave Perrier remarked that there was not a lot of input from the audience when the
Planning Commission held its Public Hearing on this ordinance amendment. He went
on to say that he would like to know exactly what it is the City wants and stressed the
importance of having the City understand what the business needs are.
Mike Maguire spoke about an outcome he hopes balances everyone's needs. He
specifically spoke to the rationale behind the 4'-6' clear zone and how that related to the
best management practice in the public safety community.
Jon Hohenstein commented that it is not unusual for people unfamiliar with City
meetings and public hearings to not understand when it is appropriate to speak. He
also said that that was the purpose for the communication efforts the City made with
press releases, weekly articles in both the local paper and the St. Paul Pioneer Press,
information in the Eagan Business Newsletter, and the inclusion of Chamber President
Ruthe Batulis and her ability to mass email multiple businesses.
Mr. Hohenstein explained that all of the communications lead up to a February meeting
of the Planning Commission where interested parties were invited to testify regarding
the proposed Ordinance Amendment. He further stated that based on testimony
received in February, modifications were made to the Draft Ordinance Amendment for
which the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing in April. Additional testimony
was received at that meeting and the item was carried over to the May Planning
2
Commission meeting to allow further modifications based on business community
concerns.
John Curlee stated that the group was spinning its wheels trying to figure out the
communications breakdown and proposed to move forward. He would like to start with
just some simple points for the group to consider: 1) Keep it simple. 2) The clear zone
which is at eye level a prime location for business I.D. and information. 3) Window
space generally is a prime location for business promotion. 4) If there is going to be a
permit and/or fee, would existing businesses with existing signs be grandfathered? 5)
What is the criteria and interpretation relative to enforcement? 6) Would corporate
branding be allowed? 7) The importance of consistency with enforcement.
Buzz Anderson said that he doesn't understand the 4'-6' clear zone and wondered if it
was necessary. He questioned that if no one can see into a bank, and other businesses
choose to have curtains/blinds or don't have window space at all, how does that line up
with the public safety concern of seeing in and out of a building? Jon Hohenstein
commented that it was simply a best management practice provided by public safety
and wasn't a code requirement, but as part of the window signage amendment effort, it
was included.
Mike Maguire agreed with Hohenstein and commented that a 4'-6' clear zone was not a
bottom-line issue to him.
Dave Perrier commented that some businesses, particularly national, have unique or
recognizable buildings or architecture that result in the building essentially being a logo.
He asked if he could simply tell the group what his business needs?
Mike Maguire stated he was open to that suggestion.
3
9
Ted Gladhill commented that the Planning Commission and Council typically deal with
infill issues where either retail wasn't originally intended or its coming into a space now
that is in close proximity to existing neighborhoods.
Wes Hallberg, commented that small business can't compete with large businesses or
national chains from the standpoint of marketing budgets.
Jack Johnson commented that the 4'-6' clear zone was an impediment on his business
operation and that signage he installed on a permanent wall approximately 3' back from
the side windows illustrates the concern of interpretation and enforcement.
Dave Perrier said that given the fact that vehicles can park in front of his tenant space,
he needs visibility over those parked cars out front and went on to state that he needs
window signage to get people into the store by alerting them of specials currently being
offered. He went on to say that the City should be concerned only with what people can
see from the public right-of-way.
John Curlee commented that corporate branding is important, that window signage is
important for promotions, and that he chose a retail center intentionally because of
traffic generated and, as such, pays a higher rent and higher taxes. He says
businesses would like to maximize their retail space and would like the ability to put
signage in a window announcing promotions, for example.
Buzz Anderson commented that he represents businesses of all sizes, but small
business is more affected by City regulations regarding advertising and promotion. His
organization sees more and more cities infringing on more businesses and they don't
belong there.
Cyndee Fields commented that the bill the Retailers Association had before the
Legislature isn't appropriate because it takes local control away from cities and tries a
"one size fits all" statewide.
4
~~
Jon Hohenstein commented on future meetings.
Buzz Anderson asked if there is a bottom line.
Mike Maguire stated that he would like to limit the number of meetings, cover more
ground at each meeting, and said there is not a bottom line.
Cyndee Fields asked if permits are a big issue. .
John Curlee stated that permits are a big deal.
Mike Maguire suggested that advertising is okay, yet interpretation (i.e. products back
from windows) needs to be looked at.
There was a brief discussion about the 20% wall coverage maximum.
Buzz Anderson asked if the 20% was negotiable.
Mike Maguire stated that it was not, that portion of the Code has existed for many years
and it is not part of the charge of the City Council to the Task Force.
Jon Hohenstein stated that it might be helpful for the group to understand exactly what
part of the new ordinance is most troubling for the business owner in attendance.
John Curlee suggested that Ruthe Batulis email some businesses on the issues and
recommended the following points for future discussion: 1) criteria and interpretation;
2) percentage, 3) permit issue, 4) grandfathering and how it will be enforced.
Ted Gladhill stated there should be a limit that creates fairness in competition.
5
Mike Maguire summarized three things he would like from the standpoint of information
for the next meeting: 1) He requested Task Force members representing the business
community provide pictures/examples of signs that would need to be altered to comply
with the ordinance as it exists today. 2) What are the specific ordinance language
changes the businesses would like to see? 3) Is there a balance that can be struck?
Discussion occurred relative to gathering information.
The next Task Force meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, April 18, at 4:00 p.m. in the
Eagan Room.
As the meeting concluded, Jon Hohenstein reiterated that it would be helpful for the
business owners in attendance to provide staff information (photos if necessary,
explaining how the current ordinance negatively affects their existing signage) by the
middle of next week, preferably on or before April 12.
Cl]/Jon Hohenstein/Signage/Meeting NoteslMeeting of 4-4-06
6
~p~
WINDOW SIGAGE TASK FORCE MEETING
APRIL 18, 2006
In attendance: Councilmembers Maguire and Fields, Ruthe Batulis, Jack Johnson,
Dave Perrier, John Curlee, APC Members Gladhill and Hansen, City Administrator
Hedges, Community Development Director Hohenstein, and City Planner Ridley.
- Jon Hohenstein provided brief opening remarks.
- Councilmember Maguire proposed the following:
1. Agree on a percentage for window signage.
2. Arrive at a conclusion on grandfathering most, if not all, existing signs.
3. Discuss permits and explicit information about enforcement and
interpretation, i.e. product placement.
- Jack Johnson agreed and stated there are four issues business owners and
Ruthe Batulis had discussed at a meeting since the Task Force last met:
o Grandfather existing signage.
o Nix a permit fee for existing signs, although the group had not decided
whether a permit or fee should be charged for new (currently not existing)
tenant signage.
o Interpretations -The group believed interpretation and enforcement need
to be better defined.
o Percentage of window signage -Their group would like no restriction on
percentage, but understood that a percentage between 25-100% needs to
be established.
- Mike Maguire asked Dave Perrier if he operates with slotting fees regarding
vendors and their signage. Dave responded that he did not.
- Cyndee Fields asked if grandfathering would cover all painted and poster type
signage currently in place. There was no consensus reached on that.
I3
- John Curlee opined that if all business- owners in town were surveyed, 99%
would question why window signage would be regulated at all.
- Cyndee Fields responded that there are regulations for many things and the
purpose of this group is to strike a balance. As an example, she stated the City
regulates the number of pets people can have.
- John Curlee stated that it was his assertion that very few business owners would
utilize 100% of their window for signage and that most, if not all, signage would
be tasteful.
- Jon Hohenstein requested clarification that the discussion was based on the 4-6'
clear-zone being removed from consideration. The group stated that was
affirmative.
- Jack Johnson mentioned that with all of the people in businesses he spoke to,
the predominant amount of window signage necessary, in their minds, is at least
50% or greater.
- Jon Hohenstein offered photos ranging from: 1) existing signs that do not appear
to meet the present 25% requirement, 2) a group that appears to meet the 25%
requirement although not the 4-6' clear zone, and 3) those that appear to meet all
current window sign standards.
- An audience member clarified issues on slotting and advertising for convenience
gas stores and that there are slotting fees for tobacco sales, as far as he knew, in
every convenience gas operation.
- Ted Gladhill shared photos he had taken and spoke about equity and the impact
of varying amounts of window signs on neighboring business within the same
strip center.
z
~~-
- Ted stated he believes every business would like to maximize signage capacity,
(he referenced portable trailer signage) but also believes there needs to be a
limit. He stated he understands the grandfather clause argument, but that just
because signage currently exists, that does not mean it is appropriate signage.
- Ted went on to say that he didn't believe the grandfathering clause would be fair
to a new business being subject to stricter standards than a competitor just
because the existing business had pre-existing signage.
- John Curlee explained that the group was just talking about window signage and
not portable trailer signage, etc. He went on to state that if his tenant space was
next to a space that utilized 100% of its window signage, it wouldn't make a
difference. He stated traffic is the key and that the two critical issues to any
business are aesthetics and location/space.
- Mike Maguire stated that while aesthetics are part of this discussion, the public
safety factor is still relevant.
- Ruthe Batulis stated that public safety could be a voluntary compliance issue.
She gave an example of a retail operation experiencing a crime of some sort, a
follow up with that business owner after the fact could encourage voluntary
compliance where visibility in and out, would be an option.
- Mike Maguire stated that he would rather be proactive on public safety, provided
it is balanced.
- Mike and Cyndee both stated that the 4-6' clear zone is impractical.
- John Curlee stated that he has issues with Piccolo's and the Italian Pie Shoppe
in that both retailers have very attractive and appropriate signage that might not
3
I~
meet the 25% coverage standard and certainly doesn't meet the 4-6' clear zone
even though in both cases the signs are see-through to a point and don't block
view in and out.
- Dave Perrier questioned why are we even doing this? He stated he understands
the 100% on certain garage doors or any other "over the top" type signage, but is
concerned that with most of the pictures shown, you can't see the signs or what
they say unless you are 30' from the space and, therefore, wouldn't be visible to
the public passing by on a public right-of-way.
- Mike Maguire stated that he believes the group has the issues boiled down to the
right ones.
- Ted Gladhill stated that window blockage vs. signage is different.
- John Curlee stated that he would like clarification on aesthetics in that he
believes aesthetics is a slippery slope and he can't think of a business that would
put up questionable signage.
- Mike Maguire stated the 50% window coverage is very high compared to other
the communities surveyed and provided on a matrix to the group.
- Cyndee Fields clarified that whatever direction this group goes, she and Mike are
only two of afive-member City Council, which includes the Mayor.
- Jon Hohenstein stated that the hour was getting late and explained what he
understood the City Council wanted and gave direction back in 2004. Fields &
Maguire concurred.
- Cyndee Fields stated that she would prefer to exclude permanent wall signage
from this discussion and focus on window signage and the percentage of same.
l~
- Ted Gladhill commented that Tires Plus, with numerous large garage doors vs. a
business with a window or two and a door, presents an unfair advertising
opportunity.
- Jack Johnson stated that windows don't drive a business decision; it is traffic in
the door that matters, and he wants to use the window space only in a
reasonable fashion.
- Cyndee Fields asked if the group is simply down to window percentage at this
point?
- John Curlee stated percentage and permits.
- Mike Maguire added grandfathering.
- Cyndee Fields suggested a no-fee permit.
- Mike Maguire remarked that incorporation of the permits was a way to assist City
staff in tracking signage throughout the community.
- Maguire stated that he was pleased with the outcome and ground covered in this
meeting and suggested that for the next meeting, business representatives come
back with a proposed percentage of window signage between the 25 and 100%.
He requested that staff prepare information relative to enforcement and
interpretation.
- Ruthe Batulis suggested that from the grandfathering standpoint, people who
have already spent money to install window signage should not have to incur a
cost by replacing that signage.
115
17
- Jon Hohenstein clarified that permanent wall signage was excluded from this
discussion and the focus was merely on window signage and the appropriate
percentage in addition to the grandfathering discussion earlier. The group
concurred.
- Jon proposed that the next meeting be at 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 2nd. The
group agreed.
CD/Jon Hohenstein/signage/Meeting NoteslMeeting of 4-18-06
6
r~
WINDOW SIGAGE TASK FORCE MEETING
MAY 2, 2006
In attendance: Councilmembers Maguire and Fields, Ruthe Batulis, Jack Johnson,
Dave Perrier, John Curlee, Buzz Anderson, APC Members Gladhill and Hansen, City
Administrator Hedges, Community Development Director Hohenstein, City Planner
Ridley, and Senior Code Enforcement Technician Mary Granley. Audience members
represented Cliff Road Holiday and Davanni's.
Jon Hohenstein opened the meeting by providing a summary of events to date and
stated at the conclusion of this Task Force process, he would like to have a discussion
with the group about how to communicate the outcome of this exercise as well as other
potential ordinances that may affect local business. He concluded by introducing the
City's Senior Code Enforcement Technician, Mary Granley, who was in attendance for
purposes of resource for application and interpretation of City Codes.
- Mike Maguire stated that he saw the central issues as: 1) the need for a simple
ordinance focused on percentage; 2) further discussion necessary to address
grandfathering and permitting, and 3) in the area of percentage, suggested that
50% is as low as he is interested in going. He questioned City Planner Ridley
about the range of percentages in the matrix of cities contacted.
- Mike Ridley stated percentages ranged from 20-50%. Mike Maguire then
commented that he understood the different needs for window signage based on
different business types.
- Buzz Anderson asked, "How do you differentiate between the businesses"?
- Mike Maguire stated that unless the City has an ordinance that differentiates
(which would be extremely burdensome and unmanageable), he was hoping for
a solution that would be manageable for most and cumbersome for few.
- Wes, present in the audience and representing the Cliff Road Holiday store,
asked about signage that was placed back from any wall. Mike Maguire
commented that he is not concerned with product placement.
- John Curlee declared, "Starting at 50% is a good start; what do you think?" He
asked Jack Johnson to comment. Jack commented that there are subsets like
liquor and convenience gas that would like 100%, but realizes it must be
negotiated.
- Buzz Anderson said that convenience gas is already regulated by State
standards requiring visibility from the cashier to the pumps to avoid drive-offs,
etc. As such, he doesn't believe the public safety argument for regulating
window signage is legitimate.
iq
- Mike Maguire stated that he disagrees with the premise of that argument and that
seeing the pumps is different than seeing what may or may not be coming out
the door.
- Jon Hohenstein commented that the group was replowing old ground and that in
order to stay on task and on time, the discussion should center on the
percentage offered.
- John Curlee again asked what the group's thoughts were.
- Cyndee Fields stated that she would not exceed 75%; Gary Hansen stated he
would support a 50% maximum; Ted Gladhill stated that he didn't see any reason
to deviate from the peer group of cities that were reviewed for standards and
believes that 25% is reasonable.
- Buzz Anderson asked why it matters what other cities do. Mike Maguire
commented that the City always checks with other cities when looking to
amend/create City Codes if for no other reason than for the purpose of
determining reasonableness.
- Jon Hohenstein commented that reviewing what other cities do with their Codes
is the best practice the City has consistently utilized. John Curlee stated that he
doesn't belittle that best practice, but stated that we shouldn't blindly follow a
precedent set by others and that it should be thought through and carefully
considered.
- There was general discussion about the percentage of businesses that presently
exceed 50%; the assumption of the group was that probably 80% would meet
50% or less, and perhaps 20% of existing businesses currently exceed 50%.
- Wes, representing Holiday on Cliff Road, stated that if the ordinance doesn't
apply to signage not on the window, he is okay with whatever percentage the
group comes up with because his banners hang on rods approximately 20" back
from the window.
- Mike Maguire stated he is concerned by banners hung to be visible for the
outside, and that he would consider that window signage.
- Jon Hohenstein suggested shifting in gear to review Mary Granley's memo for
definition of window signage.
- Buzz Anderson asked what Dave Perrier's coverage was and asked if his doors
are covered. Dave guessed his percentage coverage is about 70°~ and his
doors are generally free of signage.
2
a~
- Holiday's representative said that convenience stores are actually moving away
from a lot of signage and in response to Mike Maguire's question stated he is
probably at or maybe a little below 50% today. John Curlee stated that "rf there
are banners hanging to be visible from outside, that would be considered
signage.
- Dave Perrier asked a question about "display vs signage" and went on to say
that no one from the public has approached him to thank him for participating in
this window sign task force.
- Mike Maguire talked about the potential of surveying the public to get other
opinions about window signage in the City, but he doesn't know what that will
accomplish and would prefer to work through this process that has already
begun.
- Cyndee Fields stated that she does hear complaints and random comments from
people (not in writing, but at different events,) about the amount of signage in
town.
- An audience member from Davanni's suggested that it shouldn't be considered
signage if you can walk in front of it. Mike Maguire liked that idea as a way to
define product placement/display vs signage.
- John Curlee asked again what percentage the group can live with, specifically
asking Dave Perrier. Perrier stated 70%.
- Mike Maguire asked how the APC came up with 25%. Gary Hansen explained
there was a range of opinions of Planning Commission members and that
number shifted during various discussions, but ultimately through background
information, public testimony and hearings, the commission landed on 25% as
reasonable amount, given the "industry standards" established in surrounding
communities.
- Ruthe Batulis added that she has anecdotal evidence that because Burnsville
has a 25% standard, there are businesses looking to leave Burnsville and come
to Eagan to get away from that signage limit.
- John Curlee asked, "Is this a consensus attempt or should the group be making
motions?" Cyndee Fields stated that the group should arrive at a
recommendation and to get as close as possible to a consensus would be good.
Mike Maguire agreed.
- John Curlee made a motion to set the percentage of window signage at 70%;
Ruthe Batulis seconded that motion.
a~
- Buzz Anderson stated that he expects to see a high percentage, if not all
windows at a liquor store, covered in signs. He also commented that the little
guy (small business) needs to advertise that way to get people in the door.
- John Curlee stated that he doesn't believe every business will suddenly put up a
lot of signage based on a new percentage allowed.
- Jon Hohenstein commented on the set-up of the task force in that there is no
Chair and that the hopeful outcome was consensus.
- Wes, representing Cliff Road Holiday, stated he was optimistic that 70% would
work for all convenience store operators in town.
- Mike Maguire stated that it would be important to hear from Planning
Commission members and that he understood the varying needs between
businesses, but felt 70% is very high. He countered that he would support 60%
coverage.
- Cyndee Fields commented that the group needs to keep in mind that whatever
the Task Force arrives at must be able to be sold to the rest of the City Council
and that she is more comfortable with 60%.
- John Curlee commented that he was throwing out the 70% figure to get the ball
rolling and asked an audience attendee representing Davanni's what percentage
of window signage Davanni's currently has. She commented that it is most likely
under 60%, but they have an etched logo in the door that would need to be
considered.
- Mike Maguire proposed 60% as the level of signage and commented that that
exceeds the percentage allowed in other cities surveyed and he assumes that
those cities have liquor stores as well. Mike went on to share his experience as
signage not being the driving force; in fact, he stated that when he is going to the
liquor store, he knows he is going to buy beer (for example), and it is not the
signage that gets him in the store because he has already made the decision to
go to the liquor store. However, once he is inside the store, .then he compares
prices of sale items and makes a decision on what to purchase.
- Ted Gladhill asked if there is anything more than anecdotal information on the
impact on sales that can be attributed to window signage?
- John Curlee asked the group what percentage they could live with and got the
following responses:
^ Buzz Anderson--would like it as high as possible, but could live with 60%.
^ Cyndee Fields--60%
^ Gary Hansen--would comprise and go with 60%
4
aa,
^ Ted Gladhill-- 25%
^ Jack Johnson--60%
^ Dave Perrier--> 60%
^ Ruth Batulis--60%
- John Curlee summarized by saying that while 60% is the predominant
percentage acceptable, there are stilt issues to be worked out regarding how it is
measured, grandfathering, permits, and how to deal with certain types of signage
like etched glass, applied "see-through logos, etc.
- Jon Hohenstein summarized for the group to make sure that staff understood the
direction as follows: 1) future discussion on permits; 2) grandfathering; 3)
determination on etched glass signage, etc.; 4) 60% maximum window sign.
coverage; and 5) signage vs display would be determined by distance from the
window, i.e. that if a person can walk between the window and the display, it
would not constitute signage. The group agreed with those perimeters.
Cyndee Fields suggested that the group meet again on May 16th and asked if a 4:00
start is possible. The group agreed to a 4:00 starting time on Tuesday, May 16th.
Mike Maguire thanked everyone and said he appreciates the discussion and willingness
to participate in this "give and take" process. Fields concurred.
CD/Jan Hohenstein/Signage/Meeting Notes/Meeting of 5-2-06
5
a3
WINDOW SIGAGE TASK FORCE MEETING
MAY 16, 2006
In attendance: Councilmembers Maguire and Fields, Jack Johnson, Dave Perrier, John
Curlee, Buzz Anderson, APC Members Gladhill and Hansen, City Administrator
Hedges, Community Development Director Hohenstein, City Planner Ridley, Senior
Code Enforcement Technician Mary Granley, and audience member representing ClifF
Road Holiday.
- Mike Maguire opened the meeting by commenting that the next possible date for the
Task Force to meet (if it is before a City Council meeting) would be June 6th and he
would tike to conclude the Task Force business today if at all possible.
- Cyndee Field suggested the following standards:
a. Window signage not to exceed 60%, and fall within the 20% total wall signage
allowed
b. Glass doors retain the clear zone in the 4-6 foot area; does not pertain to
windows.
c. Grandfather existing businesses and businesses that relocate.
d. No permitting in a way that a letter detailing the new Code would be sent to
businesses explaining the new Code and informing them if they are
grandfathered or not. If no response within 45 days, a second letter would be
sent. If still no response, staff would contact the business owner. She clarified
that the grandfathering provision for relocation would apply only to businesses
forced to relocate, i.e. Cedar Grove businesses.
- Mike Maguire questioned why grandfathering would apply to a business that
relocates.
- There was general discussion but no conclusion about the 60% being within the
overall 20% sign standard.
- Ted Gladhill explained that he didn't think grandfathering an overage in signage
based on a move was consistent with earlier concerns expressed regarding the
expense of having to remove signage that currently exceeded the required amount.
If a business is moving, there is no expense in that they would have to pay for new
signage to be installed and at that point it should meet Code requirements.
- Dave. Perrier questioned if an existing 100% coverage under this grandfathering
clause would get to keep that 100% indefinitely. If the language outlined by
Councilmember Fields were adopted, it would be.
- John Curlee stated that as signs change, compliance should be required.
a~-
- Dave Perrier asked, "If a business is just touching up an existing sign, would that
constitute a change that would require compliance?"
- Mike Maguire stated he thinks as long as the content remains the same, there would
be no trigger to come into compliance because grandfathering applies to the sign,
not the business. He asked about the measurement of signs.
- Jon Hohenstein summarized the consensus points to date:
a. 4-6 foot clear zone would not apply
b. 60% would be the maximum
c. Definition of signage appeared to be agreed to at the last meeting.
d. Grandfathering needed some clarification, as well as the distance.
e. signage located within a certain distance inside a window would be defined as a
window sign.
- John Curlee stated he would be comfortable with an 18-36" distance.
- Mike Maguire stated he preferred 36" from the discussion last time where if one
could walk between the sign/display and the window, it would be considered a
display and not a sign.
- Cyndee Fields stated she would be comfortable with 18".
- Jon Hohenstein commented briefly on the issue discussed on May 2nd, display vs
signage.
- Wes from Cliff Road Holiday commented on a particular signage issue with the
Woodbury store.
- John Curlee stated 18" would suffice for him.
- Mike Maguire stated, "It sounds like 18" is the consensus".
- Jon Hohenstein explained the 12-line measurement graphic produced by Mary
Granley. The group was pleased with the Mary's graphic explanation and
clarification.
- A question about a portion of a window signage change if that would trigger
compliance. Cyndee Fields questioned if windows broken, for example during a
hailstorm, would that require compliance?
- Jon Hohenstein stated that a typical non-conforming ordinance says that if the non-
conformity is destroyed, the non-conformity would not exist when the structure is
rebuilt when the window is replaced.
2
~ J~
- Dave Perrier asked whether existing sign square footage would be allowed to
remain even though the signage itself was changed out over time, or weekly.
- Ted Gladhill stated that he doesn't think its fair, for example, that any new liquor
store coming into town would have to meet Code requirements where existing liquor
stores that exceed allowable window signage would be allowed to keep that
percentage in excess in perpetuity.
- Mike Maguire commented that he appreciated Ted's comments, but was not
concerned with the competitive advantage angle; his concern was that the City
needs a code that is reasonable and reasonably enforceable.
- John Curlee stated he doesn't see competitive advantage as an .issue for a new
business owner because they would be aware of rules they would be subject to.
- Mike Maguire stated that a liquor store having beer signs and two neon signs would
constitute a sign plan and maybe those with signage over 60% would need to apply
for a grandfather exemption and provide that sign plan.
- Mike Ridley suggested that a permit, whether it is fee driven or not, would be the
most beneficial and efficient to track signage and help determine the baseline
situations.
- John Curlee stated that a letter with a clear explanation of the Sign Ordinance would
be necessary and that he understood staffs desire for a permitting process from a
tracking and code enforcement standpoint.
- Ted Gladhill again commented on his concern with the perpetuity of the grandfather
clause.
- Mike Maguire commented that with a 60% allotment, the percentage of those
exceeding that would be minimal.
- Jon Hohenstein commented that staff would need to work with the City Attorneys to
discuss issues and parameters regarding grandfathering.
- Mike Maguire stated he was in favor of an "'opt in' program for grandfathering" in
order to get that exemption.
- John Curlee stated he supported the approach for existing businesses to apply for
an exemption for existing signage exceeding 60%. Cyndee Fields seconded that.
- Jack Johnson asked, "What about those businesses that may try to beat the
ordinances and increase their signage prior to the 60% going into effect?"
- Buzz Anderson stated that the ordinance can be pre-dated.
3
~~
- Mike Ridley stated that the current ordinance caps the window signage at 25% and,
while not being enforced presently, is still in effect.
- Ted Gladhill stated that he is still a little concerned that the 60% coverage may not
be a consensus of across-section of the 65,000 Eagan residents.
- Mike Maguire stated he understood Ted's concerns, but explained that the goal of
the Task Force was to get to where the group is today, realizing there would most
likely not be 100% agreement. His concern going in was not so much the existing
signs covering a high percentage of the windows, but the possibility that others
would follow suit. He sees that the group effort is to stave off future businesses from
attempting to cover their windows with more than 60% signage.
- Mary Granley shared her concerns with the issue of enforcement and baseline
window percentages in response to a question asked.
- Jon Hohenstein provided awrap-up of the meeting and suggested that staff gather
the notes made and work with the City Attorney's Office to determine allowed
parameters for grandfathering and asked Task Force business owners to consider
notification methods to comprehensively get the word out to all business owners.
- Mike Maguire suggested a next meeting date of June 6, 2006 at 4:00 p.m. for the
purposes of reviewing the City Attorney's draft ordinance amendment. The group
concurred.
4
d7
WINDOW SIGAGE TASK FORCE MEETING
JUNE 6, 2006
In attendance: Councilmembers Maguire and Fields, Jack Johnson, Dave Perrier, John
Curlee, APC Members Gladhill and Hansen, City Attorney Mike Dougherty, Community
Development Director Hohenstein, City Planner Ridley, and Senior Code Enforcement
Technician Mary Granley.
- Jon Hohenstein provided a general overview of past meetings and information to
bring the group up to date.
- Mike Maguire stated that he was amenable to the 60% window coverage falling
within the 20% wall coverage, provided it did not constitute a hardship.
- Dave Perrier asked, "Was that just applying to each side of the building?"
- Mike Maguire commented in the affirmative.
- John Curlee said that Cyndee Fields commented at the May 2nd meeting that she
was interested in just looking at the windows and their percentages.
- Mary Granley presented information that estimated the percentage of window
signage and percentage of wall signage for Perrier Liquors, Balloon Connection, and
the Hilltop PDQ. Mary's study determined that other than the west wall of the
Balloon Connection, all signage shown on the three sites appeared to be at or below
the 60% window sign figure and that, in combination with permanent wall signage,
fell within the 20% building facade sign signage requirement.
- Jon Hohenstein explained the origins of this study and the purpose for this
information being provided to the group this evening.
- Jack Johnson commented that businesses with a high window percentage that met
the 60% could potentially exceed the 20% overall wall signage requirement.
- Mike Maguire suggested that to keep on task, for the time being, the group should
move on from the 60% within the 20% discussion. He stated his sense is the group
could discuss that portion of the issue ad nausea, but would prefer the group
proceed as follows:
1. Focus on the 60% window signage.
2. Set aside the 20% issue for further review, or further comment by the Advisory
Planning Commission (APC) and/or Council at a later date.
- John Curlee stated he believes 20% is a non-issue and supports the Maguire
suggestion to just focus on the window percentage.
~~
- Jack Johnson commented that he would also prefer to stay with the window
discussion.
- Gary Hansen expressed concern if the 60% allotted window signage exceeded the
20% wall coverage, there would be a conflict with the new ordinance this group is
working on and the existing ordinance and does it make sense to ignore that?
- Ted Gladhill stated that based on the information provided by Mary Granley, there
will rarely be an issue of conflict and that that issue (60% and 20%) should be
clarified as the amendment works through the process.
- Mike Maguire concurred and suggested that staff should be prepared for the 60/20%
discussion as the process moves forward through the APC and City Council.
- Jon Hohenstein clarified the process as being this Task Force making a
recommendation to the City Council on proposed changes. The Council would then
direct the item to Advisory Planning Commission, who would hold the public hearing.
Their consideration would lead to a recommendation to the Council and the City
Council would take formal action on the proposal at some point in the future.
- Ted Gladhill commented that based on the information provided by Mary Granley
where even a high window sign user like Perrier Liquor, which was assumed to be in
the 60-70% range, actually falls into the 405% range. He suggested that the
actual figures do not line up with the assumptions made which caused the group to
arrive at a 60% window coverage standard. Ted proposed restarting with a 40-50%
base which would be based on more accurate, not anecdotal, information.
- Mike Maguire said he thought that was a good point, but was concerned that
restarting the discussion to create a lower base as the springboard, given the
amount of meeting time and complexity of the issue, would be taking two steps back
on a process that had already gone longer than most Task Force members
anticipated.
- John Curlee stated that even the highest sign users do not offend him and believes
60% is still a good base window sign percentage to stay with. He questioned, "As
business owners, why do we need this sort of regulation to begin with and what is it
that the City is trying to clean up?"
- Mike Maguire commented that it is important to continue to move forward and he
senses the group is close to concluding its business.
- Cyndee Fields suggested that issues agreed upon to date could be shared with the
City Council at a workshop session.
z
~~
- Mike Maguire suggested that 60% is okay with him from the standpoint of principal
and the data.
- Jon Hohenstein commented on issues of permits and grandfathering.
- Mike Maguire asked, "Is it more grandfathering or is the group looking more at an
exemption?"
- Mike Dougherty commented that the City needs to figure out first what it is they want
to accomplish, how to amass the necessary information, and determine a process to
achieve the original goal.
- Mike Maguire commented that he believes an application for an exemption from the
standards should carry a permit and fee requirement and that whatever language is
ultimately adopted should include a sunset clause.
- Dave Perrier commented that was fine with him, but is concerned with other
businesses in town that have more permanent signage that may/may not meet the
proposed requirements.
- Mike Dougherty commented that each business must be treated in the same way.
- Jon Hohenstein commented on signs painted on the window vs. those that were
etched into the glass or applied via an applique.
- John Curlee stated that he supported Mike Maguire's suggestion that if you are
outside of the new parameters, an application and fee for that exemption would be
appropriate.
- Dave Perrier stated he did not disagree, but wondered roughly what the number of
current businesses in town would be found to be over the 60% window standard.
- John Curlee questioned the number of years tied to the sunset clause and Mike
Dougherty stated that he just pulled seven years out of the air in large part, but with
an eye toward amortization of an expense incurred by a business owner.
- Cyndee Fields, Mike Maguire, John Curlee, and Jack Johnson all stated their
support of a seven-year term.
- Jon Hohenstein clarified that the City Attorney and staff would draft a Window Sign
Task Force Summary to provide to the City Council.
3
30
- Dave Perrier confirmed his understanding of the "next steps" for the process as
being a City Council Workshop (possibly September), APC Public Hearing and
recommendation to the City Council for its consideration at a regular Council
meeting and that in each case the public would be alerted to each step.
A Mike Maguire stated he believed the issue is ready to ship off to the legislative
process and to the extent that 20% was not addressed, that subject would be
discussed by the Planning Commission and/or City Council and would be
incorporated at that point in time. He further stressed that while he and
Councilmember Fields are supportive of the 60%, they could not guarantee that that
will remain the case, even though they are moving forward in this process supporting
that percentage. Cyndee Fields concurred.
- Jon Hohenstein commended the group for all of the work and ground covered and
shared his appreciation for the amount time the Task Force members gave to the
process.
- Mike Maguire thanked all participants for their insight and input for a process that
took longer than he anticipated but was certainly worth the effort.
- John Curlee also thanked the group and, in particular, the APC and City Council for
allowing the item to be reconsidered via the Task Force process.
CD/Jon HohensteiNSignage/Meeting NoteslMeeting of B-D6-O6
4
31
DRAFT - 6.20.06
SEVERSON, SHELDON, DOUGHERTY
& MOLENDA, P.A.
TO: Jon Hohenstein, Community Development Director
FROM: Sharon K. Hills, City Attorney
DATE: June 20, 2006
RE: Implementation of Window Sign Regulation Amendments
Our File No. 206-4768
In accordance with your request, this memorandum outlines a proposed procedure for the
implementation of the proposed window sign regulation amendments. The focus of the
procedures is on application of the amendments to properties that presently exceed the proposed
amendment to the window sign regulations.
The proposed window sign regulation amendment provides that a sign displayed on or in any
window shall not occupy more than sixty percent (60%) of the area of the window and/or doors
on the side of building on which the window sign is displayed. The current language of the
regulation provides no more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the window and/or door area. In
the event that the City Council approves the proposed window sign regulation amendment,
properties that currently have window signage in excess of sixty percent (60%) of the window
and/or door area would not be granted "grandfathered" status. However, the amendment would
provide for an "exemption" from the new regulation, subject to specific standards and conditions:
1. Any property that exceeds the 60% window/door area as of the effective date of
the ordinance will be exempt from the 60% window/door area restriction, provided the
property owner/occupant completes and files an "exemption registration" with the City
within 60 days of the effective date of the ordinance. If an exemption is not timely filed
with the City, the 60% area regulation will apply.
2. The property, which is exempt from the 60% sign area, is prohibited from
exceeding its registered windowldoor sign coverage.
3. Any change in sign size or type rescinds/voids the exemption and the 60%
window/door sign area will apply.
4. Any change in business located in the subject space rescinds/voids the exemption
and the 60% window/door sign area will apply.
DRAFT - 6.20.06
5. Any modification to the window or door size rescinds/voids the exemption and
the 60% sign azea will apply.
6. All properties, including those with the exemption, aze required to come into
compliance with the new regulations within seven (7) years of the effective date of the
ordinance.
The foregoing list of conditions and standards is not an exhaustive list. There may be additional
standards or conditions that you think would be appropriate to rescind or otherwise void the
exemption status.
SKH/jlt
cc: Mary Granley, Code Enforcement Technician
Mike Ridley, City Planner
Mike Dougherty, City Attorney
Agenda Information Memo
September 14, 2006, Eagan City Council
V. 2007 PUBLIC UTILITY ENTERPRISE FUND BUDGETS
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
• To provide direction to staff regarding the proposed 2007 Public Utility Enterprise
Fund Budgets and to direct that it be placed on a future City Council Meeting
Consent Agenda for formal ratification.
Introduction
The 2007 Public Utility Enterprise Funds have been prepared in a manner consistent
with the new process being implemented for the City's General Fund. They have also
incorporated a review process similar to the General Fund with sensitivity shown to the
financial goals of the City. User rates will be reviewed in the usual process and
incorporated into the City's annual fee schedule for City Council consideration. No
significant changes to rates are contemplated for any of these utility operations.
Enterprise Funds are established to account for the financing of self-supporting activities
of governmental units which render services to the general public on a user charge
basis. Records are maintained on the accrual basis of accounting.
The reports of the Enterprise Funds are similar to comparable private enterprise reports
and are self-contained. Creditors, legislators, or the general public can evaluate the
performance of the municipal enterprise on the same basis as they can the performance
of investor-owned enterprises.
Revenues
Enclosed on page ~ is a copy of the Comparat' a Summary of Revenues for all
public utility enterprise funds. Enclosed on page ~ is a copy of the Det it of
Revenues for all of the utility enterprise funds. Finally, enclosed on page ~ is a
copy of the worksheet showing the cash balances of the Storm Drainage and Water
Quality utilities, also showing the breakdown of the available cash into three categories:
Operations, Renewal & Replacement, and Expansion & Modification.
Expenditures
Water 61
The City's water utility provides for the production and distribution of safe and clean
water through a series of 21 developed major wells, two treatment plants, and six
reservoirs and towers. The water utility also maintains the water distribution system
consisting of over 323 miles of mains and laterals. At year end 2005, the City had
19,235 connections to the water system.
Excluding depreciation and debt service from the total for both years, the 2007 Water
Utility Budget is proposed at $3,148,200, an overall increase of $488,000, or 18.3% from
the 2006 budget of $2,660,200. Factors contributing to that above average increase are
included in the department budget narrative to follow. The bond payment including both
34
principal and interest to retire the outstanding debt for the South Water Treatment Plant
is $863,500 and is included in the budget. Depreciation is budgeted at $1,804,200 for
2007.
One additional Water Treatment/Production worker is proposed to be added to the
personnel complement as a transfer from the Sanitary Sewer department. The
Superintendent of Utilities position will be charged 2/3 to the Water Utility budget
beginning in 2007. The City Council will recall that the corresponding reduction for that
position has been made in the General Fund. Finally, a temporary (six-month) clerical
position is included in the Water department budget to assist in the conversion/upgrade
of the utility billing system.
Consistent with past years, also included in the proposed budget is an allocation of
$48,000 for seasonal employees to provide maintenance and technical GIS assistance.
Many of the expenditures proposed in the 2007 water utility budget are related to the
volume of water produced, treated and distributed (i.e., electricity, chemicals, break
repairs, etc.) which is often difficult to predict with any degree of accuracy. The sale of
water is proportionate to summer weather conditions, while break repairs often are the
result of winter weather conditions.
Capital outlay appropriations include $7,000 for a software upgrade and $57,000 for
three vehicles including two replacements and one new unit. The vehicles have been
included for consideration after the staffs review through the Part II CIP process.
Enclosed on pages ~(_ through ~~ is a copy of the proposed line item 2007
budget for the Water division.
Sanitary Sewer (62)
The City's sanitary sewer utility provides for the transmission of sewage to the Seneca
Waste Water Treatment Plant. All sewage treatment for the City is provided at that plant
by the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES). The City's system
consists of 274 miles of mains and laterals and 12 sanitary lift stations. At year end
2005, the City had 18,613 sanitary sewer connections to the system. Excluding the
depreciation costs, the City's budget provides for costs to maintain the collection system
(27.8%) and for the payments to MCES to provide for treatment (72.2%).
Again excluding depreciation from the total for both years, the 2007 Sanitary Sewer
Budget is proposed at $4,848,500, an overall increase of $328,100, or 7.3% from the
2006 budget of $4,520,400. Factors contributing to the increase are included in the
department budget narrative to follow. The budgeted depreciation expense included in
the 2006 budget is $607,700.
In general, the primary cost for the sanitary sewer utility is the MCES disposal charge,
which is estimated for 2007 at $3,499,000. A potential surcharge billing of $2,110,500,
paid over 5 years, imposed by MCES related to a spike in inflow and infiltration of
ground water into the system is not included in this budget. Staff is working with the
MCES to investigate, mitigate, and develop an appropriate course of action and funding
plan for the City which will be returned to the City Council for consideration at a later
date.
3s
One utility field maintenance worker is transferred to the Water utility and the reduction is
noted in the personnel complement for the Sanitary Sewer department. The
Superintendent of Utilities position will be charged 1/3 to the Sanitary Sewer utility
budget beginning in 2007. The City Council will recall that the corresponding reduction
for that position has been made in the General Fund.
Consistent with past years, also included in the proposed budget is an allocation of
$23,200 for seasonal employees to provide maintenance and technical GIS assistance.
Capital outlay appropriations include $14,000 for two Gas/OZ monitors required by
OSHA, $21,000 for a utility location vehicle, and $180,000 for a replacement sewer
jetting machine. The equipment has been included for consideration after the staffs
review through the Part II CIP process.
Enclosed on pages ~~ through ~c,~ is a copy of the proposed line item 2007
budget for the Sanitary Sewer division.
Street Lighting (63)
The City's street lighting utility provides for the operation of neighborhood street lighting,
major intersection lighting, and signals. User fees are used primarily on a pass through
basis to pay energy costs to provide the lighting; however, the fees include an increasing
component for the City's maintenance responsibilities related to the various types of
lights. At year end 2005, 14,745 customers were being billed for 3,220 neighborhood
lights provided by that system. In addition, 18,780 customers were being billed for
community lights (major intersection lighting, and signals). The Street Lighting proposed
budget is increasing by $63,000 or 14.7% from $428,800 in 2006 to $491,800 in 2007,
excluding depreciation in both years. Factors contributing to the above average
increase are included in the department budget narrative to follow.
There are no personnel accounted for in this operating budget. However, there is a
depreciation expense of $12,800 included in this budget for 2007.
There is no proposed capital included in the 2007 Street Lighting budget.
Enclosed on pages ~_ through ~ is a copy of the proposed line item 2007
budget for the Street Lighting utility.
Storm Drainage (64?
The City's storm sewer system consisting of over 200 miles of pipe, 400+ inter-
connected ponds, and 20 lift stations is designed to collect and transmit run-off to the
Minnesota River. At year end 2005, 18,792 customers were being billed for storm
drainage/water quality.
Excluding depreciation the 2007 proposed Storm Drainage budget is $190,300 reflecting
an increase of $41,200 or 27.6% over the 2006 budget of $149,100. Factors
contributing to the above average increase are included in the department budget
narrative.to follow. Four (4) years ago, the storm drainage and water quality budgets
were separated for budget and accounting purposes. The storm drainage budget
reflects only those costs associated with the conveyance and maintenance of the storm
drainage system. The 2007 budgeted depreciation amount included is $960,500.
~~
There are no changes proposed to the current complement of personnel in the Storm
Drainage utility and there are no capital outlay requests for consideration in the
operating budget.
Enclosed on pages ~_ through C, D is a copy of the proposed line item 2007
budget for the Strom Drainage division.
Water Quality (65)
The mission the Water Quality Department is to protect and improve the natural,
esthetic, and recreational qualities of Eagan's lakes, ponds, and wetlands for the
enjoyment and use by present and future residents of the City and region.
Eagan has over 375 natural lakes, ponds, and wetlands larger than one acre, and over
80 percent of them are incorporated into the City's storm water system. The Water
Quality budget reflects only those costs necessary to improve and maintain the highest
level of water quality in various ponds and lakes.
The 2007 proposed Water Quality Budget excluding depreciation is $582,700 reflecting
an increase of $17,000 or 3.0% over the 2006 budget of $565,700. The 2007 budgeted
depreciation amount included is $61,700.
The proposed personnel complement does not change from 2006; however, the position
of Water Resources Assistant approved in 2005 that has been vacant is proposed to be
filled in 2007. The responsibility for the City's Water Quality function which was moved
from Parks and Recreation to Public WorkslEngineering as a result of the Organizational
study remains in place and has been very successful. The change provides for closer
integration of the management of storm drainage and water quality efforts while still
promoting the mission of natural resource protection and use, through coordination with
the Parks and Recreation operations.
Capital outlay appropriations include $900 for small equipment related to technology
improvements.
Enclosed on pages ~-2~ through ~~ is a copy of the proposed line item 2007
budget for the Water Quality division.
3~
2007 Revenue Estimates 9220
Comparative Sum of Revenues
2007 Budget
PUBLIC UTILITIES ENTERPRISE FUND
Comparative Summary of Revenues
Actual Actual Budget Budget
2004 2005 2006 2~
TOTAL REVENUE
Service Fees:
Water $3,791,646 $3,875,420 $3,813,400 $3,744,800
Sanitary Sewer 4,427,363 4,405,837 4,630,300 4,648,900
Street Lighting 405,593 349,182 417,800 461,000
Storm Drainage 971,338 1,007,172 1,030,500 1,068,500
Connection Permits 18,500 15,561 19,000 17,000
Service Penalties 31,024 31,869 32,000 33,500
Other Operating Revenue (382,109) (234,397) 41,000 64,000
Antenna Leases 97,829 411,856 209,000 209,000
Sale of Meters 49,544 49,906 50,000 50,000
State PERA Aid 4,442 4,442 4,400 4,400
Interest on Investments 1,093,701 1,050,326 1,066,600 1,460,400
Interest -Other 68,682 67,555 62,400 65,700
Connection Charges:
Water Supply & Storage 247,832 239,035 250,000 230,000
Water Treatment Plant 245,196 242,964 250,000 230,000
Water Quality Dedication 52,253 35,646 35,000 35,000
Total Revenues 11,122,834 11,552,374 11,911,400 12,322,200
DEDICATED REVENUE
Service Fees:
1121 Water Renewal & Repl. 706,012 670,331 745,000 767,000
1122 San Sewer Renewal 8~ Repl. 214,800 239,440 255,000 263,000
1126 Storm Sewer Renewal & Repl. 96,118 99,585 103,000 106,000
1125 Storm Sewer Exp & Mod 192,237 199,169 206,000 212,000
1119!24 W.T.P. Debt Service 1,228,272 1,234,504 935,000 963,000
Connection Charges:
1123 Water Supply & Storage 247,832 239,035 250,000 230,000
1124 Water Treatment Plant 245,196 242,964 250,000 230,000
Antenna Leases - ECC 97,829 411,856 209,000 266,700
Interest Earnings:
1119 W.T.P. Debt Service 184,077 92,794 25,800 0
1121,22,26 Renewal & Replacement 346,123 403,074 362,900 533,400
1125 Water Quality Exp. & Mod 36,881 49,512 45,200 68,700
1123 Water Supply & Storage 183,836 180,392 165,500 204,900
Water Qua lity Dedication Fees:
1127 Water Quality 52,253 35,646 35,000 35,000
Total Dedicated Revenue 3,831,466 4,098,302 3,587,400 3,879,700
REVENUE AVAILABLE
FOR OPERATIONS $7,291,368 $7,454,072 $8,324,000 $8,442,500
9/8/2006
~~
2007 Revenue Estimates 9220
Detail by Dept
2007 Budget
PUBLIC UTILITIES ENTERPRISE FUND
Detail of Revenues
Actual Actual Budget Budget
ACCt 2004 200 20 2007
DEPARTMENTAL:
Water
4505 Water Service Fees $3,791,646 $3,875,420 $3,813,400 3,744,800
4506 Water Service Penalties 11,637 12,020 11,800 12,000
4507 Water Connection Permits 9,700 8,311 10,000 9,000
4509 Sale of Meters 49,544 49,906 50,000 50,000
4511 Sale of Property 17 3,565 0 0
4512 Water Turn Off/On Fee 5,895 7,700 5,500 7,000
4521 Constr Meter Permits 1,400 3,182 1,500 2,000
4522 Acct Deposit Not Refunded 1 (22) 0 0
3,869,840 3,960,082 3,892,200 3,824,800
Sanitary Sewer
4530 Sanitary Sewer Service Fees 4,427,363 4,405,837 4,630,300 4,648,900
4531 Sanitary Sewer Penalties 11,798 13,790 13,000 14,000
4532 San Sewer Connection Permits 8,800 7,250 9,000 8,000
4,447,961 4,426,877 4,652,300 4,670,900
,S,jreet Lights
4550 Neighborhood Light Svc Fees 256,603 279,741 264,300 259,000
4551 Neighbrhd/Comm Lt Penalties 1,536 1,586 1,200 1,500
4560 Community Light Service Fees 148,990 69,441 153,500 202,000
407,129 350,768 419,000 462,500
Storm DrainaaelWater Quality
4540 Storm Drainage Service Fees 971,338 1,007,172 1,030,500 1,068,500
4541 Storm Drainage Penalties 3,013 3,112 2,500 3,000
974,351 1,010,284 1,033,000 1,071,500
NON-DEPARTMENTAL:
4031 Assmt Penalties and Interest 3,040 2,947 3,500 3,000
4120 Permits 0 4,368 0 0
4160 State PERA Aid 4,442 4,442 4,400 4,400
4226 Developer Escrow Reimbursmt 47,608 39,273 20,000 35,000
4228 Eng /Financial Information 465 553 0 0
4230 Printed Material /Other Fees 38 9 0 0
4242 Maint Equipment and Personnel 8,697 9,491 5,000 8,000
4243 Manual Reading-Ded Bill Meters 2,562 1,956 2,000 2,000
4246 Admn Fee on SAC Coll 0 240 0 0
4376 Merchandise Sales 0 47 0 0
4605 Amort on Bond Premium 0 3,078 0 0
4610 Interest on Investments 1,093,701 1,050,327 1,066,600 1,460,400
4612 Interest on Assessments 65,217 64,906 60,600 64,800
4614 Interest onMCES 3,465 2,649 1,800 900
4615. Change in Fair Value of Inv (570,169) (375,814) 0 0
4617 Antenna Lease Admn Fees 0 4,000 0 0
4618 Site Survey /Eng Applic Review 500 500 0 0
4619 Antenna Lease Landscape Escow 0 2,000 0 0
4620 Antenna Site Rent 97,829 411,856 209,000 209,000
4657 Sale of City Property 4,000 0 0 0
4658 VehiGe Sales 20,075 45,105 0 0
4664 Cost Sharing Payment 0 600 0
4672 Water Quality Dedication Fees 52,253 35,464 35,000 35,000
4675 Wetlands Conserv Appl Fee 0 700 0 0
4680 Connection Charge--Water 247,832 239,035 250,000 230,000
4685 Conn Chg-Water Treatmt Plant 245,196 242,964 250,000 230,000
4691 Other Revenue 770 676 0 0
4822 Other Reimbursements 6,460 12,991 4,000 10,000
4980 Transfers In 89,572 0 0 0
1,423,553 1,804,363 1,914,900 2,292,500
GRAND TOTAL 834
122
511 $11.552.374 $11.911.400 g12.3~~.~nn
.
.
I
9/8/2006
STORM DRAINAGE (Dept 64) /WATER QUALITY (Dept 65)
CASH BALANCES
Operations (1115 cash)
Balance forward
Income "
Escrow Reimbursement
70% Storm drain fees
Grants/Other
Expenses
Genl operations
Depreciation (non-infrastructure)
Total exp
Net increase (decrease)
Ending balance
Renewal 8 Replacement (1126 cash
Balance forward
Income
10% Storm drain fees
Interest
Total income
Expenses/other
Renewal/replacement
Adjustment/other
Total expenses/other
Net increase (decrease)
Ending balance
Expansion 8: Modification (1125/27 cash
Actual Actual
2004 ZOOS
502.648 609.146
16,273 5,170
682,046 707,199
23.328 3.538
721,647 715,907
555,935 627,047
59.213 85.302
615.148 712.349
106.499 3.558
609.146 612.704
3 353 472.117
97,435 101,028
12.645 17.294
110.080 118.322
0 0
1.316 1.444
1 ~ 1.444
108.764 116.878
472.117 ~
Combined Combined
64165 64/65
Budget Budget
200
12 7 619.004
20,000 35,000
723,100 750,100
0 0
743,100 785,100
661,800 773,000
75.000 61.700
736.800 834.700
6.300 49 600
619.004 569.404
88.996 708.196
103,300 107,200
15 00 20 0
119.200 127.200
0 20,000
4 0
0 20.000
119.200 107.200
jQ8.196 $]
Balance forward 1.904.683 1.988.105 2 2. 91.952 21541.052
Income
20'/. Storm drain fees 194,870 202,057 206,600 214,300
Cash dedications (4672) 52,253 35,464 35,000 35,000
Interest 53.333 ~` 62.500 80.000
Total income 300.456 306.734 304.100 329.300
Expenses
Expansion/modification 214,275 0 55,000 0
Adjustments/other 2.759 2.887 0 0
Total expenses/other 217.034 2.887 55.000 Q
Net increase (decrease) 83.422 03 3.847 249.100 329.300
Ending balance 1.988.105 ~ 2.541.052 2.>gZ~52
~~
~lt~ Of ~8~afl 2007 Pro osed Bud et Operating Budget
P 9
Public Utilities -Water Department (61)
Responsible Manager: Wayne Schwanz, Superintendent of Utilities
PURPOSE ~ DESCRIPTION
The purpose of the Public Utilities -Water Department is to:
• Continue operation and preventative maintenance of the sewer collection,
water distribution, and storm conveyance systems
• Provide safe and clean drinking water for the City of Eagan
• Maintain the quality of the drinking water supply and test for compliance to
all State and Federal requirements
• Project future water needs
The Public Utilities -Water Department is responsible for the following functions:
• Inspect and maintain the water distribution system, including point-of-use metering
• Inspect and maintain the storm water conveyance system and assist with water quality objectives
• Supply and treat all potable water needed within the City including sampling, testing and chemical
treatment to assure water quality that meets or exceeds State and Federal health standards. Inspect and
maintain storage facilities, wells, and pressure control stations
• Respond to customer complaints
• Assist other departments when needed
• Respond to emergency repairs
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Description 2005
Actual 2006
Budget 2007
Proposed
Water main breaks 7 7 7
Gallons of safe drinking water produced 3.16 billion 3.35 billion 3.45 billion
MN Dept. of Health samples collected 840 840 840
Backflow preventers tested 581 600 620
Meter service calls 1,608 1,608 1,608
Customer service calls 2,293 2,293 2,293
Hydrants flushed 3,800 3,800 3,850
Hydrants painted 592 600 600
Locates performed 8,700 8,800 9,000
ui
City of Ea~aD 2007 Pro osed Bud et O eratin Bud et
P g P 9 9
Public Utilities -Water Department (61)
Responsible Manager: Wayne Schwanz, Superintendent of Utilities
Expenditures by Category
Capital
Services & Outlay
Other 2%
Charges
Merchandise
53% -for Resale
3%
ersonal
Parts & Services
Supplies 35%
7%
HIGHLIGHTS & CHANGES
Overview:
The Water Department budget shows an increase of
$488,000, or 18.3%. Three factors account for
$429,700, or 16.2% of the increase: an accounting
transfer of two personnel, steep increases in fuel
and energy costs, and roof replacement on the Cliff
Road Water Treatment Plant.
Hisahlistht/Change 1: The Superintendent of
Utilities position was transferred from the General
Fund Engineering budget (21) into Water (61) and
Sewer (62) on a 2/3 - 1/3 split to better reflect the
tasks/activities of this position
Financial Impact: The Water Department budget in increased by $74,900, with a corresponding decrease in the
General Fund
Service Level Impact: This accounting change does not affect service levels
His~hlis~htlChans~e 2: A previously classified Utility Field Maintenance Worker (Sewer Dept) is reclassified as a
Water Production Worker due to the recent expansion of the Coachman Water Treatment Plant and related wells
Financial Impact: The Water Department budget is increased by $54,900, with a corresponding decrease in the
Sewer Department budget
Service Level Impact: This reassignment of personnel recognizes the appropriate allocation of resources
needed to properly maintain our system and the required level of service delivery to our customers
His~hlisthtlChans~e 3: Fuel and energy costs have risen dramatically. Gas has increased from $1.75/gallon (avg)
in the 2006 budget to $2.75, a 57% increase. Electricity and Natural Gas energy costs for the well and treatment
plant pumps and heating for the expanded treatment plant, administration building and equipment garage have
increased both in unit price as well as projected quantities (i.e. increase in water sales). There is also an increase
in unit prices and quantities of chemical used for treatment due to predicted volume increases
Financial Impact: These quantity and unit price adjustments result in an increase of $259,900 (9.8%) of the
budget. Since a portion of this increase is related to increased water sales, it will be offset by comparable
revenues
Service Level Impact: While Eagan's water rates are currently in the bottom 25 percentile of metropolitan
communities, the City has been able to continuously meet the community's peak demand for the past 18 years
with the highest rating available from the Minnesota Department of Health
HisthliphtlChans~e 4: A roof replacement for the Cliff Road Water Treatment Plant is proposed. The plant is
approaching 17 years old and had a significant amount of degenerative activity on its roof during the plant's
litigated rehabilitation work 10 years ago, which reduced its life as well.
Financial Impact: At an estimated cost of $40,000, this represents 1.5% of the budget increase
Service Level Impact: This will allow the treatment plant to continue operations without interruption to the
community's water supply
His~hlisahtlChans~e 5: A temporary (six-month) clerical position is proposed to assist in the conversion/upgrade of
the Utility Billing system. All LOGIS cities are required to convert to the upgraded system.
Financial Impact: This position is needed only for 2007 and accounts for $13,100 of the budget increase
Service Level Impact: The system conversion will enhance customer service through improved billing and
reporting capabilities. The hiring of a temporary clerical during the conversion process will enable the City to
maintain customer service levels and allow existing personnel to do the required system setup and parallel billing
runs.
'T~
~lty Of E8~11 2007 Pro osed Bud et O eratin Bud et
P 9 P 9 g
Public Utilities -Water Department (61)
Responsible Manager: Wayne Schwanz, Superintendent of Utilities
HighlisahtJChansae 6: When the Coachman Treatment plant was expanded, the existing treatment facility was
upgraded with increased efficiency technologies. As a result, significantly less water is wasted in regenerating the
filter cells. However, this has resulted in a higher concentration of sludge discharged to the sewer system for
treatment at Seneca. This higher concentrate of discharge material triggered the requirements of a Metropolitan
Industrial Waste Discharge Permit at an annual fee of approximately $10,000
Financial Impact: The $10,000 budget increase is more than offset by the value of groundwater conservation
and the energy power costs to pump and treat the excess water previously required to backwash the filter cells
Service Level Impact: The increased efficiencies in backwashing the filter cells allows the plant to meet greater
supply demands on peak production days
EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
Expenditure Actual
2004 Actual
2005 Budget
2006 Proposed
2007
Personal Services $ 622,856 $ 702,624 $ 912,600 1,096,000
Parts and Supplies 141,286 267,199 197,600 220,500
Services and Other Charges 1,444,959 1,469,693 1,430,900 1,685,200
Capital Outlay - 22,643 66,100 64,000
Construction Projects - 112,198 - -
Transfer Out - 302,863 - -
Merchandise for Resale 68 - 53,000 82,500
Total $2,209,169 $ 2,877,220 $ 2,660,200 $3,148,200
Bond Payment -Principal $ 630,000
Bond Payment -Interest 266,186
Paying Agent/Bond Destrctn. Fee -
Debt Service Payments $ 896,186
Depreciation Expense $1,294,033
$ 645,000 $ 680,000 $ 715,000
235,979 201,600 148,000
- 500 500
$ 880,979 $ 882,100 $ 863,500
$ 1,824,624 $ 1,285,000 $1,804,200
~3
City of EaQaa 2007 Pro osed Bud et Operating Budget
P g
Public Utilities -Water Department (61)
Responsible Manager: Wayne Schwanz, Superintendent of Utilities
POSITION INVENTORY
Personnel 2004 2005 2006 2007 Hours
Superintendent 0 0 0 0.67 1,394
Water Production/Treatment Supervisor 1 1 1 1 2,080
Utility Field Operations Supervisor 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 693
Administrative Assistant (System Analyst) 0.67 0.67 1.67 1.67 3,467
Senior GIS Technician 1 1 1 1 2,080
GIS Technician 1 1 1 1 2,080
Clerical V 0 1 0 0 -
Utilities Inspector 1 1 1 1 2,080
System Maintenance Workers 3 3 3 3 6,240
Water Treatment/Production Workers 3 3 3 4 8,320
Total 11 12 12 13.67 28,434
2007 WORK PLAN
Activity
Routine
1 Water Administration
2 Water Field Operation/Repair
3 Erosion control
4 GIS/GPS Administration
5 Treatment Plant/Production
6 Emergency call outs
~+
City of Ea~o
2007 Proposed Budget
Public Utilities -Water Department (61)
Responsible Manager: Wayne Schwanz, Superintendent of Utilities
LINE ITEM DETAIL
Operating Budget
Actual Actual Budget Proposed
Acct PERSONAL SERVICES 2004 2005 2006 2007
6110 SALARIES AND WAGES-REGULAR $ 463,958 $ 516,584 $ 639,600 $ 752,000
6112 OVERTIME-REGULAR 14,307 13,487 29,800 30,400
6130 SALARIES AND WAGES-TEMPORARY 12,371 16,631 31,200 54,900
6131 PERA-COORDINATED 26,350 29,497 40,200 49,600
6142 FICA 35,427 39,843 53,600 64,100
6144 HEALTH INSURANCE 54,556 68,919 99,000 124,400
6151 LIFE 905 1,072 - -
6152 DISABILITY-LONGTERM 1,725 2,056 - -
6154 WORKERS COMPENSATION 13,257 14,535 19,200 20,600
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES $ 622,856 $ 702,624 $ 912,600 $ 1,096,000
PARTS & SUPPLIES
6210 OFFICE SUPPLIES $ 2,191 $ 1,332 $ 2,700 $ 2,400
6211 OFFICE PRINTED MATERIAUFORMS 8,071 120 - 200
6220 OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL 1,567 1,324 2,000 2,000
6222 MEDICAURESCUE/SAFETYSUPPLlES 563 390 1,000 1,000
6223 BUILDING/CLEANING SUPPLIES 2,839 1,908 2,000 2,000
6224 CLOTHING/PERSONAL EQUIPMENT 1,988 2,309 2,100 2,900
6230 REPAIR/MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES-GENERAL - 142 - -
6231 MOBILE EQUIP REPAIR PARTS 1,844 6,053 2,700 3,600
6232 SMALL EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS - 36 300 300
6233 BUILDING REPAIR SUPPLIES 170 388 1,400 500
6235 FUEL, LUBRICANTS, ADDITIVES 12,948 15,984 15,600 22,900
6240 SMALL TOOLS 2,958 1,613 2,000 300
6244 CHEMICALS & CHEMICAL PRODUCTS 32,954 57,534 33,500 42,700
6250 LANDSCAPE MATERIAL & SUPPLIES 954 51 500 500
6255 STREET REPAIR SUPPLIES 4,806 1,973 1,500 2,000
6257 SIGNS & STRIPING MATERIAL - 272 500 300
6260 UTILITY SYSTEM PARTS/SUPPLIES 65,699 131,959 82,000 80,500
6270 COMPUTER SOFTWARE 1,734 43,811 47,800 56,400
TOTAL PARTS & SUPPLIES $ 141,286 $ 267,199 $ 197,600 $ 220,500
SERVICES 8 OTHER CHARGES
6310 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES-GENERAL $ 95,890 $ 74,453 $ 18,500 $ 18,600
6311 LEGAL 21 - - -
6312 ENGINEERING - - 3,000 -
6314 AUDITING 9,200 2,700 3,800 3,900
6315 FINANCIAL NON-AUDIT 2,430 1,491 - -
6323 TESTING SERVICES 4,614 5,986 5,000 5,700
6346 POSTAGE 15,236 14,225 21,600 15,600
6347 TELEPHONE SERVICE 8 LINE CHG 2,688 4,309 4,300 4,500
6351 PAGER SERVICE FEES 703 829 1,000 800
6352 TELEPHONE CIRCUITS 1,235 1,600 1,300 1,600
6353 PERSONAL AUTO/PARKING 38 170 - -
6354 CAR WASHES 7 45 - -
6355CELLULARTELEPHONESERVICE 2,390 5,290 1,900 3,500
6356 ONE CALL SERVICE FEE - - 6,400 6,400
6370 GENERAL PRINTING AND BINDING 3,272 5,494 5,000 5,800
City of Ea~a~ 2007 Proposed Budget Operating Budget
Public Utilities -Water Department (61)
Responsible Manager: Wayne Schwanz, Superintendent of Utilities
LINE ITEM DETAIL (CONT'D~
Actual Actual Budget Proposed
Acct PERSONAL SERVICES 2004 2005 2006 2007
63851NSURANCE 68,600 62,300 63,900 67,100
6409 ELECTRICITY-WELLS/BOOSTER STN 407,281 484,237 402,600 578,500
6410 NATURAL GAS SERVICE 26,967 96,660 42,000 109,400
6425 MOBILE EQUIPMENT REPAIR LABOR 53 512 1,000 500
6427 BLDG OPERATIONS/REPAIR-LABOR - 3,243 1,000 800
6429 STREET REPAIR-LABOR 31,699 7,784 55,000 7,700
6430 COMMUNICATION SYSTEM RPR-LABOR - - 2,000 -
6432 UTILITY SYSTEM REPAIR-LABOR 110,616 7,752 74,100 110,100
6457 MACHINERY &EQUIPMENT-RENTAL 895 - - -
6475 MISCELLANEOUS - 5,351 - -
6476 CONFERENCES AND SCHOOLS 1,100 5,567 4,700 8,500
6477 LOCAL MEETING EXPENSE 43 56 200 100
6479 DUES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS 2,918 300 3,900 3,600
6480 LICENSES, PERMITS AND TAXES 28,153 38,587 40,500 38,000
6483 DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY 11,950 - - -
6487 VISA/MC BANK CHARGES 930 857 1,000 -
6493 DAK CTY SA FEES 1,259 1,383 - -
6505 PUBLIC UTILITY ADMIN FEE 499,600 524,600 579,100 615,600
6506 TRANSFER FOR CENTRAL SVCS 109,300 106,900 84,400 56,900
6535 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES - - - 5,300
6539 WASTE REMOVAUSANITATION SERV - 197 200 -
6563 LANDSCAPING 365 - - -
6569 MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS 5,506 6,815 3,300 5,800
6575 MCES DISPOSAL CHARGES - - 200 10,900
OTHER SERVICES AND CHARGES $1,444,959 $ 1,469,693 $ 1,430,900 $ 1,685,200
CAPITAL OUTLAY
6610 LAND AND LAND IMPROVEMENTS $ - $ - $ 25,000 $ -
6670 OTHER EQUIPMENT - 22,643 22,000 7,000
6680 MOBILE EQUIPMENT - - 19,100 57,000
6700 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS - 112,198 - -
CAPITALOUTLAY $ - $ 134,841 $ 66,100 $ 64,000
TRANSFER OUT
6805 TRANSFER OUT $ - $ 302,863 $ - $ -
TRANSFEROUT $ - $ 302,863 $ - $ -
MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE
6855 MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE $ 68 $ - $ 53,000 $ 82,500
MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE $ 68 $ - $ 53,000 $ 82,500
TOTAL WATER DEPARTMENT $2,209,169 $ 2,877,220 $ 2,660,200 $ 3,148,200
18.34%
DEBT SERVICE
6490 BOND PAYMENT -PRINCIPAL $ 630,000 $ 645,000 $ 680,000 $ 715,000
6491 BOND PAYMENT -INTEREST 266,186 235,979 201,600 148,000
6492 PAYING AGENT/BOND DESTRCTN FEE - - 500 500
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE $ 896,186 $ 880,979 $ 882,100 $ 863,500
6488 DEPRECIATION EXPENSE $ 1,294,033 $ 1,824,624 $ 1,285,000 $ 1,804,200
~It~ 0~ ~8~[1 2007 Proposed Budget Operating Budget
Public Utilities -Sewer Department (62)
Responsible Manager: Wayne Schwanz, Superintendent of Utilities
PURPOSE $i DESCRIPTION
The purpose of the Public Utilities -Sewer Department is to:
• Provide uninterrupted sanitary sewer collection to the City of Eagan
• Meet all Federal standards in waste water management
The Public Utilities -Sewer Department is responsible for the following functions:
• Maintain sanitary sewer collection system including pipes, manholes, anc
lift stations
• Assist other departments as directed
• Report to all State and Federal agencies required by law
• Inspect and maintain the waste water collection system and ensure
Metropolitan Treatment Facility at Seneca
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
its sanitary conveyance to the
2005 2006 2007
Description Actual Budget Proposed
Televised sewer pipe, in feet 73,000 73,000 73,000
Sewer pipe jetted, in miles 99 99 99
Sewer pipe relined, in feet 5,000 5,000 5,000
New sewer service accounts 126 115 100
t
City of Eagan 2007 Pro osed Bud et O eratin Bud et
P 9 P 9 9
Public Utilities -Sewer Department (62)
Responsible Manager: Wayne Schwanz, Superintendent of Utilities
Expenditures by Category
Services &
Other
Charges MCES
Parts ~ 12% Wastewater
Supplies Charges
3% 72%
Personal
Services Capital
g% Outlay
a°i°
HIGHLIGHTS S~ CHANGES
Overview: The Sewer Utilities budget shows an
increase of $328,100, or 7.3%. Factors accounting
for most of the increase upgrade of the telemetry
system (SCADA), and capital equipment acquisition.
The accounting transfers of two personnel (one into
Sewer, one out) result in a net personnel decrease
in the Department.
Highli~htlChans~e 1: The System Control and Data
Acquisition (SCADA) telemetry controls necessary
to coordinate, monitor, alarm and run all of the
sanitary sewer lift station pumps are approaching 20
years old with replacement parts becoming increasingly hard to find. This budget proposes to implement the 1st
year of a 3-year replacement/upgrade program.
Financial Impact: Total impact in 2007 is $50,000 (5 stations at $10,000/station). A similar amount will be
required in both 2008 and 2009.
Service Level impact: Timely and scheduled replacement of this critical control system will help insure a reliable
and uninterrupted service delivery program for our sanitary sewer system
Hi~hlight/Chans~e 2: Replacement of the location van/vehicle and the sewer jetter, considered under the Part II
CIP process, is proposed.
Financial Impact: The location van is $21,000; the jetter is $180,000. Total budget impact is $201,000.
Service Level Impact: Timely replacement of equipment allows the Sewer operation to continuously meet the
community's demand with a significantly higher than average reliability and very few flow interruptions while
maintaining our sewer rates in the bottom 20 percentile of metropolitan communities
Hi~hlightlChan~te 3: The Superintendent of Utilities position was transferred from the General Fund into Water
(61) and Sewer (62) on a 2/3 - 1/3 split to better reflect the tasks/activities of this administrative/management
position
Financial Impact: The $36,900 increase to the Sewer Department is offset by a corresponding decrease in the
General Fund
Service Level Impact: This accounting change does not affect service levels
Hiphli~thUChanS~e 4: A previously classified Utility Field Maintenance Worker has been moved out of the Sewer
Department and into the Water Department as a Water Production Worker due to the recent expansion of the
Coachman Water Treatment Plant and additional wells
Financial Impact: The Sewer budget is decreased by $54,900; the Water budget is increased by the same
amount
Service Level Impact: This reassignment of personnel recognizes the appropriate allocation of resources
needed to properly maintain both utility systems and the required level of service delivery to our customers
~~
City of Ea~a~
2007 Proposed Budget
Public Utilities -Sewer Department (62)
Responsible Manager: Wayne Schwanz, Superintendent of Utilities
EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
Operating Budget
Actual Actual Budget Proposed
Expenditure 2004 2005 2006 2007
Personal Services $ 384,871 $ 424,485 $ 443,800 434,100
Parts and Supplies 56,923 79,076 86,800 135,700
Services and Other Charges 475,881 515,208 556,600 564,700
MCES Disposal Charges 2,976,810 3,253,526 3,403,300 3,499,000
Capital0utlay - 6,407 29,900 215,000
Construction Projects - 44 - -
Transfer Out - 6,410 - -
Total $3,894,485 $ 4,285,156 $ 4,520,400 $4,848,500
Depreciation Expense $ 583,216 $ 609,874 $ 600,000 $ 607,700
POSITION INVENTORY
Personnel 2004 2005 2006 2007 Hours
Superintendent 0 0 0 113 693
Utilities Operations Supervisor 213 2/3 2/3 213 1,387
System Maintenance Workers 5 5 5 4 8,320
Administrative Assistant (System Analyst) 113 1/3 1/3 1/3 693
Total 6 6 6 5.33 11,093
2007 WORK PLAN
Activity
Routine
1 Sanitary sewer administration
2 Sanitary Field Operation/Repair
3 Storm sewer field maintenance
4 Emergency call outs
~~
City of Ea~aa 2007 Proposed Budget Operating Budget
This page intentionally left blank.
City of Eagan 2007 Pro osed Bud et O eratin Bud et
A 9 A 9 9
Public Utilities -Sewer Department (62)
Responsible Manager: Wayne Schwanz, Superintendent of Utilities
LINE ITEM DETAIL
Actual Actual Budget Proposed
Acct PERSONAL SERVICES 2004 2005 2006 2007
6110 SALARIES AND WAGES-REGULAR $ 286,165 $ 273,652 $ 301,000 $ 289,000
6112 OVERTIME-REGULAR 6,562 15,704 9,000 13,400
6130 SALARIES AND WAGES-TEMPORARY 5,223 15,296 20,200 20,800
6131 OVERTI ME-TEMPORARY - 26 - -
6142 PERA-COORDINATED 16,535 16,057 18,600 18,900
6144 FICA 22,212 22,470 25,300 24,700
6151 HEALTH INSURANCE 34,232 36,467 48,300 48,500
6152 LIFE 591 558 - -
6154 DISABILITY- LONG TERM 1,098 1,055 - -
6155 WORKERS COMPENSATION 12,253 12,957 21,400 18,800
6157 RETIREE INSURANCE FUNDING - 30,243 - -
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES $ 384,871 $ 424,485 $ 443,800 $ 434,100
PARTS l~ SUPPLIES
6210 OFFICE SUPPLIES $ 2,211 $ 1,235 $ 3,200 $ 2,100
6211 OFFICE PRINTED MATERIAUFORMS 2,133 118 - -
6220 OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL 506 841 1,000 1,000
6221 FILM 8, FILM PROCESSING 17 - - -
6222 MEDICAURESCUE/SAFETYSUPPLlES 1,255 901 1,400 1,000
6223 BUILDING/CLEANING SUPPLIES - 67 - 100
6224 CLOTHING/PERSONAL EQUIPMENT 1,685 2,048 1,800 1,400
6230 REPAIR/MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES-GENERAL (78) 59 - -
6231 MOBILE EQUIP REPAIR PARTS 5,459 6,855 3,100 6,500
6232 SMALL EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS 43 - - -
6235 FUEL, LUBRICANTS, ADDITIVES 10,614 13,194 12,300 17,500
6240 SMALL TOOLS 1,990 760 1,500 200
6241 SHOP MATERIALS 684 386 - -
6255 STREET REPAIR SUPPLIES 74 874 1,000 1,000
6257 SIGNS & STRIPING MATERIAL 1,408 - 200 200
6260 UTILITY SYSTEM PARTS/SUPPLiES 28,121 7,190 15,000 63,500
6270 COMPUTER SOFTWARE 801 44,548 46,300 41,200
TOTAL PARTS & SUPPLIES $ 56,923 $ 79,076 $ 86,800 $ 135,700
SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES
6310 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES-GENERAL $ 40,593 $ 10,486 $ 18,500 $ 18,600
6314 AUDITING 9,200 6,100 3,800 3,900
6315 FINANCIAL NON-AUDIT 2,430 1,491 - -
6346 POSTAGE 14,961 12,524 14,800 15,600
6347 TELEPHONE SERVICE & LINE CHG 2,833 3,109 - 3,000
6351 PAGER SERVICE FEES 342 371 600 300
6352 TELEPHONE CIRCUITS 1,860 1,978 2,100 2,000
6353 PERSONAL AUTO/PARKING 19 70 - -
6354 CAR WASHES 46 19 - -
6355 CELLULAR TELEPHONE SERVICE 2,421 2,048 900 1,800
6356 ONE CALL SERVICE FEES 11,332 11,990 6,400 6,400
6357 ADVERTISING/PUBLICATION 113 - - -
6385 INSURANCE 11,700 16,500 14,700 15,400
6405 ELECTRICITY - 183 - -
~`
filly D~ ~8Q8(1 2007 Proposed Budget Operating Budget
Public Utilities -Sewer Department (62)
Responsible Manager: Wayne Schwanz, Superintendent of Utilities
LINE ITEM DETAIL (CONT'D~
6408 ELECTRICITY-LIFT STATIONS
6425 MOBILE EQUIPMENT REPAIR LABOR
6427 BUILDING OPERATIONS/REPAIR-LAB
6429 STREET REPAIR-LABOR
6430 COMMUNICATION SYSTEM RPR-LABOR
6432 UTILITY SYSTEM REPAIR-LABOR
6457 MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT
6476 CONFERENCES AND SCHOOLS
6477 LOCAL MEETING EXPENSES
6479 DUES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS
6480 LICENSES, PERMITS AND TAXES
6487 VISA/MC BANK CHARGES
6505 PUBLIC UTILITY ADMIN FEE
6506 TRANSFER FOR CENTRAL SVCS
6535 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
6539 WASTE REMOVAL/SANITATION SERVICES
6569 MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS
6575 MCES DISPOSAL CHARGES
OTHER SERVICES AND CHARGES
CAPITAL OUTLAY
6670 OTHER EQUIPMENT
6680 MOBILE EQUIPMENT
6700 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
CAPITAL OUTLAY
TRANSFER OUT
6805 TRANSFER OUT
TRANSFER OUT
18,548 19,360 18,700 21,000
192 1,064 1,000 -
- 2,620 - -
8,038 1,329 1,000 -
- - 400 400
53,334 112,818 144,000 143,000
562 - 1,000 1,000
2, 338 5,185 2, 700 2, 700
62 49 300 -
69 22 - -
211 172 100 1,000
930 857 1,000 -
237,800 249,700 275,600 293,000
54,700 53,400 42,200 28,500
- - 5,000 5,300
80 156 - -
1,167 1,607 1,800 1,800
2,976,810 3,253,526 3,403,300 3,499,000
$3,452,691 $ 3,768,734 $ 3,959,900 $ 4,063,700
$ - $ 6,407 $ 8,000 $ 14,000
- - 21,900 201,000
$ - $ 6,407 $ 29,900 $ 215,000
$ - $ 6,410 $ - $ -
$ - $ 6,410 $ - $ -
TOTAL SEWER DEPARTMENT
$3,894,485 $ 4,285,112 $ 4,520,400 $ 4,848,500
7.26%
6488 DEPRECIATION EXPENSE $ 583,216 $ 609,874 $ 600,000 $ 607,700
5a
~lty Of EB~fI 2007 Pro osed Bud et O eratin Bud et
P g A g 9
Public Utilities -Street Lighting (63)
Responsible Manager: Russ Matthys, City Engineer
PURPOSE 8s DESCRIPTION
The purpose of the Public Utilities -Street Lighting Department is to:
• Provide adequate lighting for public safety on city streets and at signalized intersections
• Ensure the electrical provisions for the traffic control signals within the City of Eagan
• Coordinate the maintenance of the street lighting system for optimal performance
• Administer the maintenance of the traffic control signals' operation and infrastructure
The Public Utilities -Street Lighting Department is responsible for the following functions:
• Coordinate the installation of street lights on all streets within City jurisdiction, both private
developments or public improvements
Address maintenance needs of the street lighting system & traffic control signals within the
City, including light replacement, pole repair/refurbishment
• Provide field surveying, preparation of feasibility studies, reports and staff support at Council meetings for
public improvements for street lights
• Manage the reimbursement of electrical services for street lighting and traffic signals
• Update Capital Improvement Program for City's street light and traffic control signals
• Coordinate/present Public Hearings/Final Assessment Hearings for City improvements for street lights
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
2005 2006 2007
Description Actual Budget Proposed
Number of street lights installed/upgraded 39 35 43
Number of traffic signals installed 1 1 2
~3
City of Ca~aa 2007 Pro osed Bud et O eratin Bud et
P 9 P 9 9
Public Utilities -Street Lighting Department (63)
Responsible Manager: Russ Matthys, City Engineer
Expenditures by Category
Services &
Other
Charges
~ oo°io
Service Level Impact: No impact on service level
HIGHLIGHTS 8c CHANGES
Overview: The Street Lighting budget shows an
increase of 14.7% due largely to continued
increases in the cost of electricity, additional
preventative maintenance and an above-average
year for major intersection upgrades
Highlistht/Chan~e 1: Anticipated increases in the
cost of electricity due to greater cost responsibility
for some traffic control signals and the installation of
new street lights
Financial Impact: Increase of $42,400 over 2006
budget
Hisahlisaht/Chans~e 2: Preventive maintenance is proposed to be 11% higher. Preventive maintenance work
estimates are based field surveys of City-owned street lights performed in 2006.
Financial Impact: Additional cost of $4,000 over the 2006 budget of $37,200
Service Level Impact: Preventive maintenance is expected to be less costly than emergency maintenance and
is hoped to extend the useful life of the street lights
HiohlisthtlChans~e 3: A one-year increase in the approved Street Lights CIP improvements will increase relevant
costs by 24.2%
Financial Impact: Additional cost of $8,000 over the 2006 budget of $33,000. The $41,000 CIP expenditure
would be the highest anticipated in the next five years, with an expected annual average of $18,000 over the next
4-year period
Service Level Impact: The proposed street light improvements will help maintain consistency of streetlighting
throughout the community
His~hli~htJChan~e 4: Anew agreement with Dakota County Transportation Department provides on-demand
service calls for City-owned traffic signals
Financial Impact: Annual cost of $6,000 ($1,500 per signal) for contractual services that were inadvertently not
included in 2006 budget
Service Level Impact: This arrangement with the County provides a greater level of service for the City-owned
traffic control signals at a reduced price compared to the previous use of commercial electricians
~~
City of EaQaa 2007 Proposed Budget Operating Budget
Public Utilities -Street Lighting. Department (63)
Responsible Manager: Russ Matthys, City Engineer
LINE ITEM DETAIL
Actual Actual Budget Proposed
Acct SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 2004 2005 2006 2007
6315 FINANCIAL- NON-AUDIT $ 1,215 $ 1,102 $ 2,000 $ 2,800
6406 ELECTRICITY-STREET LIGHTS 267,541 312,409 312,600 355,000
6407 ELECTRICITY-SIGNAL LIGHTS 27,031 18,105 15,000 15,000
6411 UTILITY SYSTEM STREETLIGHT 25,112 11,937 33,000 41,000
6432 UTILITY SYSTEM REPAIR-LABOR 13,129 50,996 37,200 41,200
6505 PUBLIC UTILITY ADMIN FEE 26,400 38,000 29,000 30,800
6535 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 108 13,465 - 6,000
OTHER SERVICES AND CHARGES $ 360,536 $ 446,014 $ 428,800 $ 491,800
TOTAL STREET LIGHTING DEPARTMENT
6488 DEPRECIATION EXPENSE
$ 360,536 $ 446,014
$ 12,797
$ 12,797
$ 428,800 $ 491,800
14.69%
$ 32,000 $ 12,800
~lt~ Of EaQ811 2007 Pro osed Bud et O eratin Bud et
P 9 P 9 9
This page intentionally left blank.
Ciq of F~~a~
2007 Proposed Budget
Public Utilities -Storm Drainage Department (64)
Responsible Manager: Wayne Schwanz, Superintendent of Utilities
PURPOSE sc DESCRIPTION
The purpose of the Public Utilities -Storm Drainage Department is to:
Maintain the City's collection and conveyance system for excess
surface water runoff
Operating Budget
The Public Utilities -Storm Drainage Department is responsible for the
following functions:
Inspect and maintain drainage system consisting of pipes, ponds and pumping stations
• Maintain the inlets and outlets for ponds including the removal of any erosion/siltation that restricts the
flow or limits ponding capacities
• Respond to emergency pumping station alarms or resident calls during major peak events
• Assist with Water Quality programs and objectives
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
2005 2006 2007
Description Actual Budget Proposed
Televised storm pipes, in miles 5,000 5,000 5,000
Drainage complaints received 22 20 18
Construction inspections performed
Ponds. inspected
Control structures checked
157 160 160
136 140 140
96 100 100
~~
City of Evan 2007 Proposed Bud et Operating Budget
9
Public Utilities -Storm Drainage Department (64)
Responsible Manager: Wayne Schwanz, Superintendent of Utilities
Expenditures by Category
Personal
Services & Services
Other ~ $' ~ 4%
Charges
75.75%
Parts &
Supplies
6.'I 'I
HIGHLIGHTS & CHANGES
Overview: The Storm Drainage budget shows an
increase of $41,200, or 27.6% over 2006. Factors
accounting for this increase include a more accurate
prediction of precipitation and related energy costs,
and a capital improvement to dredge a storm water
detention pond.
Histhlis~htJChans~e 1: With annual precipitation
difficult to predict, a 10-year average (1996-2005)
was used to project a percentile deviation from the
2005 recorded amount and related actual costs.
Rising energy costs for the pumping stations were
factored into the cost estimates as well.
Financial Impact: At an estimated increased cost of $18,200, this represents 12.2% of the budget increase
Service Level Impact: There is no change proposed to the current service levels for storm water control
Hisahlis~htlChanste 2: Pond AP-13.1 (Lifetime Fitness) is proposed to be dredged to restore the original ponding
capacity necessary for flood control
Financial Impact: At an estimated one-time increased cost of $20,000, this represents 13.4% of the budgel
increase
Service Level Impact: Delay in the capital improvement will carry risks of localized flooding during smaller events
EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
Actual Actual Budget Proposed
Expenditure 2004 2005 2006 2007_
Personal Services $ 112,821 $ 144,736 $ 33,000 34,500
Parts and Supplies 13,908 12,098 11,700 11,600
Services and Other Charges 178,031 128,163 103,400 144,200
Capital Outlay - 1,275 1,000 -
Construction Projects 15 2,544 - -
Total $ 304,775 $ 288,816 $ 149,100 $ 190,300
Depreciation Expense $ 949,481 $ 963,769 $ 950,000 $ 960,500
~~
City of Eagan 2007 Proposed Budget Operating Budget '
Public Utilities -Storm Drainage Department (64)
Responsible Manager: Wayne Schwanz, Superintendent of Utilities
POSITION INVENTORY
Personnel 2004 2005 2006 2007 Hours
System Maintenance Workers 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1,040
Total 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1,040
2007 WORK PLAN
Activity
Routine
1 Inspection/clean-up of structures
2 Lift station maintenance
3 Weed harvesting
4 Water quality support
5 Aeration
6 Storm response
Cit
f E
y o
a~~ 2007 Proposed Budget Operating Budget
Public Utilities -Storm Drainage Department (64)
Responsible Manager: Wayne Schwanz, Superintendent of Utilities
LINE ITEM DETAIL
Actual Actual Budget Proposed
Acct PERSONAL SERVICES 2004 2005 2006 2007
6110 SALARIES AND WAGES-REGULAR $ 79,958 $ 104,182 $ 23,800 $ 24,500
6112 OVERTIME-REGULAR 1,184 1,730 1,000 1,100
6130 SALARIES AND WAGES-TEMPORARY 8,140 6,523 - -
6142 PERA-COORDINATED 4,566 5,941 1,500 1,600
6144 FICA 6,537 8,082 1,900 2,000
6151 HEALTH INSURANCE 9,054 13,815 4,100 4,500
6152 LIFE 172 223 - -
6154 DISABILITY -LONG TERM 313 426 - -
6155 WORKERS COMPENSATION 2,897 3,814 700 800
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES $ 112,821 $ 144,736 $ 33,000 $ 34,500
PARTS 8 SUPPLIES
6210 OFFICE SUPPLIES $ 1,185 $ 47 $ - $ 100
6211 OFFICE PRINTED MATERIALlFORMS 2,133 - - -
6220 OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL 224 9 500 500
6222 MEDICAL/RESCUE/SAFETY SUPPLIES 176 6 200 200
6224 CLOTHINGlPERSONAL EQUIPMENT 523 356 300 300
6232 SMALL EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS - - 300 100
6234 FIELD/OTHER EQUIPMENT REPAIR - - 100 100
6235 FUEL, LUBRICANTS, ADDITIVES - 10 - -
6240 SMALL TOOLS 223 - 300 300
6250 LANDSCAPE MATERIAL & SUPPLIES 108 28 - -
6255 STREET REPAIR SUPPLIES 3,007 - - -
6256 SNOW REMOVAL/ICE CONTROL SUPPLIES - 40 - -
6257 SIGNS & STRIPING MATERIAL - 401 - -
6260 UTILITY SYSTEM PARTS/SUPPLIES 5,632 10,911 10,000 10,000
6270 COMPUTER SOFTWARE 697 290 - -
TOTAL PARTS & SUPPLIES $ 13,908 $ 12,098 $ 11,700 $ 11,600
SERVICES 8 OTHER CHARGES
6310 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES-GENERAL $ 8,131 $ 16,734 $ - $ -
6353 PERSONAL AUTO/PARKING - 113 - -
63851NSURANCE 3,600 3,800 8,100 8,500
6408 ELECTRICITY-LIFT STATIONS 61,848 81,593 64,700 82,900
6427 BUILDING OPERATIONS/REPAIR-LAB - 1,746 - -
6429 STREET REPAIR-LABOR 794 - - -
6432 UTILITY SYSTEM REPAIR -LABOR 28,703 - 5,000 29,900
6457 MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT 1,207 611 5,000 1,000
6476 CONFERENCES AND SCHOOLS 496 1,674 200 200
6505 PUBLIC UTILITY ADMIN FEE 18,500 19,400 20,400 21,700
6535 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 53,585 778 - -
6539 WASTE REMOVAL/SANITATION SERVICES - 107 - -
6569 MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS 1,167 1,607 - -
OTHER SERVICES AND CHARGES $ 178,031 $ 128,163 $ 103,400 $ 144,200
CAPITAL OUTLAY
6630 OTHER IMPROVEMENTS
6640 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT
6670 OTHER EQUIPMENT
fi700 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
CAPITAL OUTLAY
TOTAL STORM DRAINAGE DEPARTMENT
$ - $ - $ 1,000 $ -
- 185 - -
1,090
15 2,544 - -
$ 15 $ 3,819 $ 1,000 $ -
$ 304,775 $ 288,816 $ 149,100 $ 190,300
27.63%
6488 DEPRECIATION EXPENSE $ 949,481 $ 963,769 $ 950,000 $ 960,500
W~
City of Evan
2007 Proposed Budget
Public Utilities -Water Quality (65)
Responsible Manager: Eric Macbeth, Water Resource Coordinator
PURPOSE & DESCRIPTION
The purpose of the Public Utilities -Water Quality Department is to:
• Protect and improve natural, aesthetic, and recreational qualities of
Eagan Lakes, ponds, and wetlands for enjoyment and use by
present and future resident of the City and regional community
Operating Budget
.,
'~
The Public Utilities -Water Quality Department is responsible for the
following functions: ?~~
• Direct implementation of Eagan Water Quality Management Plan
• Ensure City compliance with Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act `~ ,. ~ , ,°~' `
rules
• Coordinate City compliance with Minnesota storm-water discharge permit and impaired water regulations
• Monitor and manage water resources and other land use activities directly or indirectly affecting water
resources
Educate community about land and water issues relating to water quality, lakes, and wetlands
Coordinate among city, county, state, and federal entities to protect and improve water resources
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
2005 2006 2007
Description Actual Budget Proposed
Lakes, ponds monitored in long-term program 18 19 19
Lakes, ponds aerated in winter for fisheries 8 6 6
Loads of aquatic plants removed from lakes
Lakes, ponds treated with alum
Impaired-Water/TDML studies
Climb Theatre performances in K-12 schools
148 150 150
4 2 6
- - 2
5 6 6
cal
City of EaQao
2007 Proposed Budget
Operating Budget
Public Utilities -Water Quality Department (65)
Responsible Manager: Eric Macbeth, Water Resource Coordinator
Expenditures by Category
HIGHLIGHTS & CHANGES
Overview: The Water Quality budget shows an
overall increase of $17,000, or 3.0%. Significant
increases in supplies and other services and
charges are largely offset by transferal of water
quality improvement projects from the operations
budget to the Public Works Capital Improvements
Program. This budget is a first response to recent
survey results indicating 99% of residents say water
quality of Eagan lakes and ponds is important.
Assuming Council approval by late-2006 of the
Eagan Water Quality Management Plan (Plan)
update, this budget also anticipates initial increases
in program operational capabilities in 2007, as likely to be recommended by the Plan.
Highlis~htlChange 1: Doubling of alum chemical
Financial Impact: Increase of $3,500, from $3,600 in 2006 to $7,100 in 2007.
Service Level Impact: Expanded treatments to manage phosphorus inputs to lakes and ponds
Highli~thtlChange 2: Additional landscape materials and supplies
Financial Impact: One-time increase of $3,000, from $2,000 to $5,000
Service Level Impact: Development of new rock shore-fishing access areas at up to 6 lakes in City Parks
Highlisaht/Chanpe 3: New data management, analysis, and presentation software program for long-term water
quality data
Financial Impact: One-time increase of $9,000, from $500 to $9,500
Service Level Impact: Expanded, state-of-the-art capability to manage, analyze, and present long-term water
quality data
Highlis~ht/Chanpe 4: Nearly threefold increase in professional services consultants
Financial Impact: Increase of $22,500, from $12,500 to $35,000
Service Level Impact: Conduct required studies and technical assessments for City compliance with State
storm water discharge permit and impair water regulations
Hisahlistht/Chanste 5: Nearly 50% increase in lab testing services
Financial Impact: Increase of $8,000, from $17,000 to $25,000
Service Level Impact: Increased lab testing of lake water samples for State-required TMDL (Impaired Water)
studies.
HighlightlChans~e 6: Nearly doubling of watershed management assessment
Financial Impact: Increase of $14,200, from $16,200 to $30,400
Service Level Impact: Support Gun Club Lake WMO new program initiatives: a) institute resident water
resources cost-share grant program, b) conduct interagency Nicols Meadow groundwater monitoring project, c)
develop goose & aquatic plant management policies d) leverage external grant opportunities, and e) sponsor
University of Minnesota Extension workshops for homeowners.
l.~
City of Eagan 2007 Pro osed Bud et O eratin Budgef
P g P 9
Public Utilities -Water Quality Department (65)
Responsible Manager: Eric Macbeth, Water Resource Coordinator
EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
Actual Actual Budget Proposed
Expenditure 2004 2005 2006 2007
Personal Services $ 198,556 $ 205,759 $ 302,000 317,000
Parts and Supplies 32,721 25,351 29,300 44,500
Services and Other Charges 106,910 121,225 179,400 220,300
Capital Outlay 12,258 4,152 55,000 900
Total $ 350,445 $ 356,487 $ 565,700 $ 582,700
Depreciation Expense $ 59,213 $ 85,303 $ 45,000 $ 61,700
Transfer Out $ 55,777 $ - $ - $ -
POSITION INVENTORY
Personnel 2004 2005 2006 2007 Hours
Water Resources Coordinator 1 1 1 1 2,080
Water Resources Specialist 1 1 1 1 2,080
Water Resources Assistant/Technician 0 1 1 1 2,080
System Maintenance Worker 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1,040
Operations Support Specialist 0 0 0.5 0.5 1,040
Clerical Technician 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1,040
Total 3 4 4.5 4.5 9,360
2007 WORK PLAN
Activit
Routine
1 Administration/supervision/planning
2 Monitor & manage water resources
3 Enhance recreational fishing; assess ecological conditions
4 Special projects/research
5 Public education/involvement
6 Public relations/customer service
7 Interagency coordination/partnerships
8 Professional development/training
9 Technical fieldwork for interagency collaborative grant study of Nicols Fen area
10 Coordination for required Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan annual report
11 Expanded monitoring/coordination for required Impaired Waters/TMDL studies
~3
6ty orFa~u
2007 Proposed Budgef
Operating Budget
Public Utilities -Water Quality Department (65)
Responsible Manager: Eric Macbeth, Water Resources Coordinator
LINE ITEM DETAIL
Actual Actual Budget Proposed
Acct PERSONAL SERVICES 2004 2005 2006 2007
6110 SALARIES AND WAGES-REGULAR $ 151,612 $ 155,208 $ 234,400 $ 243,900
6112 OVERTIME-REGULAR 305 104 - -
6130 SALARIES AND WAGES-TEMPORARY 10,333 12,010 - -
6142 PERA-COORDINATED 8,309 8,971 14,100 15,200
6144 FICA 11,463 11,502 17,900 18,700
6151 HEALTH INSURANCE 13,111 14,535 31,100 34,300
6152 LIFE 328 333 - -
6154 DISABILITY -LONG TERM 610 646 - -
6155 WORKERS COMPENSATION 2,485 2,450 4,500 4,900
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES $ 1.98,556 $ 205,759 $ 302,000 $ 317,000
PARTS & SUPPLIES
6210 OFFICE SUPPLIES $ 119 $ - $ 100 $ 100
6215 REFERENCE MATERIALS 95 145 200 200
6220 OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL 1,084 634 2,000 1,500
6222 MEDICAL/RESCUE/SAFETY SUPPLIES - 19 - 100
6224 CLOTHINGlPERSONAL EQUIPMENT - 25 200 200
6231 MOBILE EQUIP REPAIR PARTS 15,176 7,353 11,500 8,200
6232 SMALL EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS 154 - 200 200
6234 FIELD/OTHER EQUIPMENT REPAIR 344 - 500 500
6235 FUEL, LUBRICANTS, ADDITIVES 4,473 7,479 7,400 11,300
6240 SMALL TOOLS 74 57 100 100
6244 CHEMICALS & CHEMICAL PRODUCTS 1,509 5,110 3,600 7,100
6250 LANDSCAPE MATERIAL & SUPPLIES 7,955 4,059 2,000 5,000
6257 SIGNS & STRIPING MATERIAL 737 181 1,000 500
6270 COMPUTER SOFTWARE 1,001 289 500 9,500
TOTAL PARTS & SUPPLIES $ 32,721 $ 25,351 $ 29,300 $ 44,500
SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES
6310 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES-GENERAL $ 11,379 $ 21,183 $ 12,500 $ 35,000
6312 ENGINEERING 10,671 - 10,000 5,000
6313 PLANNING - - 50,000 50,000
6323 TESTING SERVICES 16,595 20,419 17,000 25,000
6346 POSTAGE - 21 100 100
6353 PERSONAL AUTO/PARKING 93 5 200 100
6355 CELLULAR TELEPHONE SERVICE 161 194 300 200
6359 LEGAL NOTICE PUBLICATION - 166 200 200
6370 GENERAL PRINTING AND BINDING 5,534 2,747 3,000 500
63851NSURANCE 2,100 2,200 4,000 4,200
6405 ELECTRICITY 906 1,414 1,000 1,600
6426 SMALL EQUIPMENT REPAIR-LABOR - - 200 -
6457 MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT - - 300 100
6475 MISCELLANEOUS - 232 300 300
6476 CONFERENCES AND SCHOOLS 1,721 1,392 1,600 2,400
6477 LOCAL MEETING EXPENSES 243 198 200 200
6479 DUES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS 215 418 200 400
6480 LICENSES, PERMITS AND TAXES 623 276 500 300
6495 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ASSESSMNT 11,369 11,395 16,200 30,400
6505 PUBLIC UTILITY ADMIN FEE 45,300 47,600 50,000 53,200
6535 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES - 5,205 2,500 2,600
6860 COST SHARING PAYMENTS - 6,160 9,100 8,500
OTHER SERVICES AND CHARGES $ 106,910 $ 121,225 $ 179,400 $ 220,300
emu"
~It~ Or ~8~8(I 2007 Pro osed Bud et O erafin Bud et
P 9 P 9 9
Public Utilities -Water Quality Department (65)
Responsible Manager: Eric Macbeth, Water Resources Coordinator
LINE ITEM DETAIL (CONT'D)
Actual Actual Budget Proposed
Acct CAPITAL OUTLAY 2004 2005 2006 2007
6630 OTHER IMPROVEMENTS $ - $ - $ 55,000 $ -
6660 OFFICE FURNISHINGS & EQUIPMENT 2,260 4,152 - -
6670 OTHER EQUIPMENT 9,998 - - 900
6680 MOBILE EQUIPMENT - - - -
CAPITALOUTLAY $ 12,258 $ 4,152 $ 55,000 $ 900
TOTAL WATER QUALITY DEPARTMENT
$ 350,445 $ 356,487 $ 565,700 $ 582,700
3.01
6488 DEPRECIATION EXPENSE $ 59,216 $ 85,303 $ 45,000 $ 61,700
6805 TRANSFER OUT $ 55,777 $ - $ - $ -
(.U~-~
Agenda Information Memo
September 14, 2006
VI. 2007 CASCADE BAY BUDGET
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
• To provide direction to staff on the 2007 rates, on the 2007 Cascade Bay
operating budget, and to direct that the items be placed on a future City
Council Meeting Consent Agenda for formal ratification.
The Cascade Bay operating budget for 2007 is presented for consideration by
the City Council at the Special meeting. Campus Facilities Manager Vaughan,
Superintendent of Operations Mesko, City Administrator Hedges, Director of
Parks and Recreation Johnson, Director of Administrative Services
VanOverbeke, and Chief Financial Officer Pepper recently met and reviewed the
proposed rates, revenue estimates, and expenditure requests included in this
budget.
The proposed 2007 budget is balanced at $1,211,500. This is an increase of
approximately 3.1 % or $36,300 from the 2006 budget of $1,175,200. More detail
is provided in the following sections of this memo. The budget includes a
proposed change to the admission rates for the first time since the 2003 season.
A complete rate history from the openin of the facility broken down by the
various categories is provided on page.
The balanced budget provides for the appropriate level of renewal and
replacement funds, includes an allocation for capital equipment, and annual debt
service.
Attendance
The proposed 2007 budget is based on an estimated attendance of 134,000.
The 2006 budget was based on an estimated attendance of 146,000. The actual
attendance for 2005 was 128,696. The following is a table displaying attendance
for seven years of operation and for two years of budget estimates for Cascade
Bay.
~~
Cascade Ba Attendance Summa
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Attendance Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Bud et Bud et
Season Pass
Admissions 77,852 64,384 66,229 55,395 48,832 28,403 38,339 50,000 41,000
Daily
Admissions 72,843 70,457 82,794 68,383 82,112 53,801 72,976 79,000 74,000
Group or
Birthda 10,129 16,360 19,086 17,814 17,576 18,288 17,381 17,000 19,000
Total
Attendance 160,824 151,201 168,109 141,592 148,520 100,492 128,69 146,000 134,000
Season Passes
Sold 9,100 7,800 7,000 6,175 5,275 4,120 3,940 4,500 4,100
Rounds of Golf n/a n/a n/a nla n/a nla n/a 8,000 12,000
As a reminder, the facility was built based on estimated average attendance of
135,000. The average attendance over the six year period (1999-2005)
calculates to 142,566. The highest attendance year was 2001 with 168,109
guests while the lowest year was 2004 with 100,492 reflecting the colder than
average summer.
Revenues
The following table illustrates actual revenues for the years 2001 through 2005,
the a roved bud et for 2006, and the ro osed bud et for 2007.
Cascad e Ba Revenue Summa
2001
Actual 2002
Actual 2003
Actual 2004
Actual 2005
Actual 2006
Bud et 2007
Bud et
Admissions $ 742,888 $ 671,041 $ 756,162 $ 519,056 $ 598,185 $ 720,000 $ 712,500
After 5 m Adm 69,809 59,025 65,566 39,251 64,973 65,000 63,000
Grou Sales 125,865 145,902 127,463 131,013 127,063 140,000 136,800
Merch Sales 15,201 2,853 4,518 3,549 14,403 4,000 6,100
Concessions 239,299 206,647 232,790 168,957 222,328 220,000 211,000
Vendin 4,083 2,089 1,332 909 3,172 1,200 1,400
Classes 8 Cam s 3,062 10,661 16,335 22,245 19,841 20,000 22,000
Private Rental 4,473 7,345 5,000 5,000
Miniature Golf 33,700
Other 6,152 1,091 3,357 1,113
Interest 36,626 39,603 25,417 15,751 13,887 20,000
Total $1,236,833 $ 1,143,973 $1,228,492 $ 901,847 $1,072,310 $1,175,200 $1,211,500
Enclosed on page ~~ is a copy of actual revenues for the years 2005, the
budgeted revenues for 2006 and estimated revenues for 2007 with more detail
for that year. The 2007 revenue estimates are based on an increase to
admission rates as previously noted. The sale of golf rounds and rate increase
Q-E7
are off setting the slightly lower attendance projection to arrive at the estimated
2007 revenue of $1,211,500.
Staff continues to seek ways to generate more revenue. This effort results in
additional revenue from time periods where the facility would otherwise not be
open. Additional information is presented later in the memo outlining both
challenges and brainstorming ideas for 2007.
Personnel
The personnel section of the Cascade Bay budget is consistent with the
presentation for the 2006 budget and continues to reflect the implementation of
the recent organizational study. To better utilize resources and to gain
efficiencies, the study recommended more consolidation of operations between
the two enterprise facilities located on the Municipal Center Campus and the
Community Center. The study recommended and the City Council authorized
the elimination of the Cascade Bay Manager and Civic Arena Manager positions,
and the creation of the Campus Facilities Manager and the Superintendent of
Operations positions. This action and the related reallocation of support
personnel between the Civic Arena and Cascade Bay are reflected in the
following table for Cascade Bay and in the presentation of the Civic Arena
budget. Finally, with the consolidation of the management of the two campus
facilities the need for operational support is reflected in this proposed budget
through the continuation of an additional clerical/administrative position. The
new position was added in 2006 with a one year sunset provision to allow the full
implementation of the new operational model and to provide for a management
review of organizational needs and service delivery over the year. Staff is
recommending that the position be approved on a continuing basis beginning in
2007 to maintain the required support services to the management of the
enterprise facilities. Enclosed on page ~_ is a copy of the Cascade Bay
personnel table. Per the earlier City Council request the personnel table for the
Civic Arena is the com lement of the Cascade Bay personnel table and is also
presented on page ~.
Expenditures
Enclosed on pages ~ through ~~ is a copy of the proposed line item
budget for 2007.
Consistent with previous years, this proposed budget provides for debt service
payments. 2007 payments total $162,300 on the $1,200,000 borrowed from the
housing fund and the $800,000 loan from the Community Investment Fund. The
proposed budget does not allocate any funds toward eventual repayment of the
$1,000,000 advanced from the Community Investment Fund. The repayment of
that $1,000,000 was set up to be a balloon payment after 20 years, subject to the
availability of cash reserves. Amortization of that advance would require
approximately $85,000 per year over the 20 year period. To date no provision
has been made to raise rates or to dedicate retained earnings for this purpose.
~D~
The calculated renewal and replac ent account is funded at $64,600 for 2007.
Enclosed on pages ~_ and ~ is a copy of the Cascade Bay
Renewal and Replacement Schedule.
Capital Outlav
Included in the preliminary 2007 Budget ' an allocation of $44,500 for capital
outlay. Enclosed on pages ~_ and are copies of the items proposed
to be included in the 2007 budget. All capi al is proposed to be financed from
current operations as there are no items for which renewal and replacement
dollars have been set aside.
Revenue/Ex enditure Summa
Enclosed on page is a copy of a high level summary of revenues,
expenditures, and other disbursements from 1999 through the estimated results
of the 2007 budget. The net available component of retained earnings/cash at
12-31-05 is $466,681 with $427,037 of that in the renewal and replacement
account leaving a balance of $39,644. The 2005 activity and the ending balance
reflect the significant cost of the repairs and renovation to the facility that were
undertaken in 2005 at a cost of approximately $379,000 net of the $175,000
settlement.
While not specific to the proposed 2007 Cascade Bay budget, the following
information in bullet fashion helps provide perspective to past and future
operations of the facility.
2006 Season Recap
• Preliminary indications are that attendance did not meet projections so the
admissions revenue will be less than projected.
• The golf course projections are right on target and we hope to exceed the
10,000 round projection.
• Attendance 134,637 (preliminary calculation)
0 8 days with 3-4,000 attendance (June/July)
0 15 days with 2-3,000 (June/July)
0 35 days with 1-2,000
0 17 days with 500-1,000 (June/August/Sept)
0 15 days with < 500 attendance
• Season was 90 days long
• Only one day was closed all day (July 19). Several other partial days were
closed for bad weather.
• After 5 p.m. paid admissions were 1,016 less than in 2005
• Regular paid admissions were 2,273 less than in 2005.
• Morning activities (water walking, lap swimming, water aerobics) were 733
more than in 2005
• Concessions sales exceeded 2005 but the final numbers have not been
finalized yet.
~,q
Mini golf-2006
• 8,052 rounds of golf were sold from June 27 through August 27 for total
revenue of $24,156. Captain's Course is expected to remain open until
October 22 during the evenings and weekends, weather permitting.
• Original projections for 2006 anticipated 10,000 rounds (projected revenue
of $30,000) based on the course being open by June 3 when Cascade
Bay opened for the year. That represents 24 days of revenue that we've
not captured. Were we open on June 3 and maintained the average
rounds per day we've seen this year, we would have exceeded our
projections at this point.
• The comments have been overwhelmingly positive with many comments
focused on how the course looks like it's always been there.
• There was an expectation that season pass holders would be excited to
purchase punch cards to play golf but only a few have taken advantage of
this option. Now that people have been using the course we may see this
pass holder advantage being used more.
Challenges for 2007
• As Cascade Bay enters its 9~' year of operation there is the stark
realization that the attendance has plateaued and there will need to be a
very concentrated effort to maintain the interest and attendance in
subsequent years.
• Although Captain's Course adds a new element, thought needs to be
given to creative programmatic elements that will bring people into the
facility.
• August is by far the largest challenge for attendance. Many people are on
vacation, getting ready for the upcoming school year or just tired of going
to the pool.
• While there will be a strong focus between September and December to
put programmatic pieces in place for Cascade Bay's 2007 season, the
Superintendent of Operations and Director of Parks and Recreation are
working on a 5-year master plan for Cascade Bay, Civic Arena and ECC
that will begin to address longer range planning. The plans will be shared
with the City Council to solicit input and help to frame future growth,
changes and budget implications and to serve as a guide for future
considerations.
• Growing season pass memberships will require more direct marketing to
new residents, specific age groups, and educating current residents. The
number of non-resident season passes continues to grow while resident
passes are declining. A survey of pass holders over the past 3 years may
help determine why that is changing.
Brainstorming for 2007
• Some of the non-traditional ideas that are floating about to capture larger
audiences for 2007 include:
`fib
o Concentrated emphasis on private rentals and special events
focused toward local business.
o Hosting entertainment events (music/performances) near golf
course/concessions patio.
o Themed or special events designed as perks for pass holders that
might also be open to the public. Movie in a tube was an example
of an event that brought in 1,000 people on an otherwise quiet
evening.
o Define and begin an "annual" event for the community.
o Look at package deals like swim/golf/dinner, etc.
o Consider adult only activities or events.
o Look into morning golf leagues, challenge events (neighborhoods,
schools, ages, etc. ),
o Partner with the library for activities and events that can benefit
both facilities.
o Offer August only season passes.
o Work with day cares/YMCA/summer schools/home schools for
specialized classes or admissions for low-peak attendance times.
o Look at other programmatic activities that might happen within the
gates of Cascade Bay when there is not water in the pool; host an
Easter Egg hunt, for example.
o Look for other targeted age groups (like Little Mates) that would
benefit from exclusive programming.
o Expand swim lessons but focus on areas not currently being met;
first time older swimmers (10-adult) or specialized interest (family
lessons)
Summary
There is a great deal of material presented with this budget proposal to assist the
City Council in its consideration of the 2007 budget. The 2007 budget as
presented is balanced, continues the implementation of the results of the
organizational study, provides for the appropriate level of renewal and
replacement funds, includes an allocation for some capital improvements, and
the annual installment for the scheduled debt service.
Staff continues to efficiently operate and tv aggressively market the use of
the facility to increase revenues and is making every effort to operate a
successful business venture per City Council direction.
The cash position is an indicator of previous success as a business. However,
the competition for leisure time dollars and customer expectations demonstrate
the need to remain efficient and to remain a preferred vendor for the services
provided through the Cascade Bay activities. This proposed operating budget
and the proposed capital improvements assist in meeting that objective.
~~
Cascade Bay Rate Comparison
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
ro osed
Daily Admission +.50* +.25 +.2.5 +I.00
> 42" 7.00 7.50 7.50 7.75 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 9.00
< 42" 4.50 5.00 5.00 5.75 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 7.00
> 62 years 4.50 5.00 5.00 5.75 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 7.00
< 18 months free free free Free Free Free Free Free Free
After 5 pm Admission
> 42" 5.00 5.50 5.50 5.75 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 7.00
< 42 " 3.50 4.00 4.00 4.25 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 5.00
> 62 ycars 3.50 4.00 4.00 4.25 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 5.00
< ]8 months Free free free Free Free Free Free Free Free
Resident Season Passes +3.00 +2.00 +2.00
]S` member 48.00 51.00 51.00 51.00 53.00 53.00 53.00 53.00 55.00
Add'1 member> 42" 38.00 41.00 41.00 41.00 43,00 43.00 43.00 43.00 45.00
Add'1 member <42" 25.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 29.00 29.00 29.00 29.00 31.00
Add'1 member >62 yrs. 25.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 29.00 29.00 29.00 29.00 31.00
Add'1 member < 18 mos Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free
Resident Passes-after 5 pm +3.00 +2.00 +5.00
15` membcr 40.00 43.00 43.00 43.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 50.00 Rarely urchased
Add'1 member> 42" 30.00 33.00 33.00 33.00 35.00 35.00 35.00 35.00 40.00
Add'I member <42" 20.00 22.00 22.00 22.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 30.00
Add'1 member>62 vrs. 20.00 22.00 22.00 22.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 30.00
Add'1 member < 18 mos Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free
Non-Resident Season Pass
IS` member n/a n/a 61.00 61.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 65.00
Add'1 member> 42" n/a n/a 51.00 51.00 53.00 53.00 53.00 53.00 55.00
Add'1 member <42" n/a n/a 37.00 37.00 39.00 39.00 39.00 39.00 41.00
Add'1 member>62 yrs. n/a n/a 37.00 37.00 39.00 39.00 39.00 39.00 41.00
Add'1 member < 18 mos n/a n/a Free Free Free Free Free Free Free
Non-Resident Pass-after 5 pm
151 member n/a n/a 53.00 53.00 55.00 55.00 55.00 55.00 60.00 Rarely purchased
Add'lmember>42" n/a n/a 43.00 43.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 50.00
Add'I member <42" n/a n/a 32.00 32.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 40.00
Add'1 member>62 vrs. n/a n/a 32.00 32.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 34.00 40.00
Add'1 member < 18 mos n/a n/a Free Free Free Free Free Free Free
*to reflect sales tax
$2.00 increase over 9 years = $.22 increase/yr or 3% annually
~O~
City of Ea~a
2007 Proposed Budgef
Operating Budget
4310 Park program revenue
Aquatic Facility -Cascade Bay
Responsible Manager: Cherryl Mesko, Superintendent of Operations
REVENUE ESTIMATES
2007 2006 2005
Budget Actual Budget Actual Budget Actual
Classes and camps 22,000
4312 Concession sales
CB open hours (220,000) 206,000
Ext golf course hours (6,000) 5,000
4314 Merchandise sales
Locks/goggles/cameras (6,000) 5,600
4315 Merchandise sales (non-tax)
Clothing 500
4316 Group Sales
Birthdays (10,000) 9,300
Groups (100,000) 93,500
4317 Group Sales (non-tax) 25,000
sponsorships 9,000
4318 Daily Admissions
Regular-waterpark (580,000) 542,300
After 5 pm-waterpark(s3,ooo) 59,200
Golf (38,000) 33,700
4321 Memberships
Resident (129,000) 120,600
Non-resident (53,000) 49,600
After 5 pm-waterpark (4,000) 3,800
4322 Vending
4326 Facility rental
Private rental (5500) 5,000
4327 Facility rental (non-tax)
4610 Interest income
Total Revenue
22,000
211,000
5,600
500
102,800
34,000
635,200
174,000
1,400
5,000
20,000
1,211,500
~3
20,000
4
1
1,200
5,000
1,1
20,200 19,841
211,400 .222,328
4,000 6,154
136,200 125,800
200
773,600 663,157
0
3,172
7,000 8,145
1,156
21,161
1,152,400 1,071,114
Cil~ of Ea~aa 2007 Proposed Budget Operating Budget
Aquatic Facility -Cascade Bay
Responsible Manager: Cherryl Mesko, Superintendent of Operations
PURPOSE & DESCRIPTION
The purpose of the Aquatic Facility is to: ,,.~
• Provide a positive environment for residents and guests of all ages s ~'
to gather '"`""
• Encourage and help build a sense of community through a wide .,.. ""'
range of recreational and social opportunities
• Provide a high level of service accessibility and professionalism to
expand revenue option to ensure the viability of this resource to the community
The Aquatic Facility is responsible for the following functions:
• Provide a wide variety of water-related recreational opportunities for members and non-members
• Capture a high level of revenue to offset operational costs, debt repayment and expand the retained
earnings capacity to accommodate future growth and expansion
• Protect the City's community investment by maintaining the integrity and value of the building and its
amenities
• Create a welcoming atmosphere and solicit input from users to best determine how to meet existing
needs and identify future growth opportunities
• On-going analysis of existing operation and research to find ways to expand the recreational opportunifiies
beyond the three-month pool season in order to maximize the capital investment
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
2007
Description 2005 Actual 2006 Budget Proposed
Season passes sold 3,940 4,500 4,100
Total attendance 128,696 146,000 134,000
Group admissions
Days facility is open
Rounds of golf
Private rentals
17,381 17,000 19,000
88 + golf
89 88 pre/post
season
NIA 8,000 12,000
4 6 8
~~
Clty Of E8~811 2007 Pro osed Bud et O eratin Bud et
P 9 P 9 9
Aquatic Facility -Cascade Bay
Responsible Manager: Cherryl Mesko, Superintendent of Operations
Expenditures by Category
Personal parts &
Reserve for ~ ~ Supplies
R&R 7%
6°/
HIGHLIGHTS 8c CHANGES
Overview: The 2007 budget reflects only
inflationary increases in expenses over the 2006
budget. The budget is up $36,300, or 3.1 %.
° His~hlisthtlChance 1: The Administrative
.services 8, Coordinator, currently a temporary position, is
Debt Service Other proposed to be added to regular staff. With the
~ q ~° harges
° consolidation of the Civic Arena and Cascade Bay
Merchandise Capital 16%
for Resale Outlay under one manager, there was a need identified to
6% 4% help with the day-to-day operation of both facilities.
The administrative position began in late-2005, and
as it has evolved, there has been a demonstrated
need for this position to continue. This position is going to be even more vital to the Campus Facilities Manager as
the two facilities look at overall staffing and workload and move to a new model to more efficiently use existing
staff. This operation will mirror positions at ECC to reach a level of operating consistency and to allow cross-
divisional use of staff when needed.
Financial Impact: Because it was budgeted as a temporary position in 2006, there is essentially no dollar impact
for the 2007 budget. The .67 FTE position will add $35,800 to the Cascade Bay regular personnel budget (.33
FTE, or $17,900, is added to the Civic Arena's regular personnel budget as well)
Service Level Impact: This position provides the level of professional support needed to assist the Campus
Facilities Manager and allow him to spend his time with higher priority management tasks and long-range
planning
EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
Actual Actual Budget Proposed
Expenditure 2004 2005 2006 2007
Personal Services $ 440,574 $ 518,684 $ 539,700 563,900
Parts and Supplies 53,808 67,903 69,500 89,400
Services and Other Charges 198,698 241,943 182,300 195,700
Capital Outlay 36,686 2,072 45,600 44,500
Merchandise for Resale 88,024 114,700 112,000 91,100
Debt Service 159,015 160,415 161,500 162,300
Reserve for Renewal & Replacement - - 64,600 64,600
Total $ 976,805 $1,105,717 $1,175,200 $1,211,500
~~
City of ~a~an 2007 Pro osed Bud et O eratin Bud et
P 9 P 9 9
Aquatic Facility -Cascade Bay
Responsible Manager: Cherryl Mesko, Superintendent of Operations
CASCADE BAY POSITION INVENTORY
Personnel 2004 2005 2006 2007 Hours
Aquatic Facilities Manager 1 1 0 0 -
Campus Facilities Manager 0 0 0.33 0.33 686
Maintenance Worker (2 @ .5 hrs.) 1 1 1 1 2,080
Maintenance Worker (1 @ .33 hrs.) 0 0 0.33 0.33 686
Clerical Technician 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 832
Administrative Coordinator 0 0 0.67 0.67 1,394
TOTAL 2.4 2.4 2.73 2.73 5,678
2007 WORK PLAN
Activity
Routine
1 Respond to public comments or requests via phone or in person
2 Daily mainenance and cleaning of building and pool
3 Manage the building infrastructure to ensure efficient, safe and clean environment
4 Develop promotional materials for seasonal facility
5 Recruit, hire, train and supervise temporary and part time employees
6 Provide work direction to ensure high level of customer service is maintained
7 Develop long range plans and strategies for expanded service
8 Manage staff scheduling and training to meet the demands of the building
Cascade Bay and the Civic Arena share a number of staff. The Civic Arena staff complement is shown below:
CIVIC ARENA POSITION INVENTORY
Personnel 2004 2005 2006 2007 Hours
Civic Arena Manager 1 1 0 0 -
Campus Facilities Manager 0 0 0.67 0.67 1,394
Building Supervisor 1 1 0 0 -
Skating School Coordinator 0.75 1 1 1 2,080
Maintenance Worker (2 @ .5) 1 1 1 1 2,080
Operations/Maintenance Worker 0 0 0.67 0.67 1,394
Clerical Technician 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 416
Administrative Coordinator 0 0 0.33 0.33 686
Total 3.95 4.2 3.87 3.87 8,050
~`-~
City of ~a~a 2007 Pro osed Bud et O eratin Bud et
P 9 P 9 9
This page intentionally left blank.
~7
City of Eagan 2007 Pro osed Bud et Operating Budget
P 9
Aquatic Facility -Cascade Bay
Responsible Manager: Cherryl Mesko, Superintendent of Operations
LINE ITEM DETAIL
Actual Actual Budget Proposed
Acct PERSONAL SERVICES 2004 2005 2006 2007
6110 SALARIES AND WAGES-REGULAR 74,735 88,495 122,400 $ 130,500
6112 OVERTIME--REGULAR - - 1,000 1,000
6130 SALARIES AND WAGES-TEMPORARY 312,893 367,081 340,000 350,000
6131 OVERTIME--TEMPORARY 13 17 - -
6142 PERA-COORDINATED 4,007 5,159 6,800 8,200
6144 FICA 29,209 33,673 35,500 36,800
6151 HEALTH INSURANCE 9,792 11,862 22,400 24,800
6152 LIFE INSURANCE 162 172 -
6154 DISABILITY -LONG TERM 202 257 -
6155 WORKERS COMPENSATION 9,561 11,968 11,600 12,600
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES $ 440,574 $ 518,684 $ 539,700 $ 563,900
PARTS 8~ SUPPLIES
6210 OFFICE SUPPLIES $ 271 $ 510 $ 500 $ 700
6211 OFFICE PRINTED MATERIAUFORMS 745 462 2,000 2,000
6212 OFFICE SMALL EQUIPMENT 40 - 100 100
6215 REFERENCE MATERIALS 7 - 300 300
6220 OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL 11,296 16,355 13,000 15,000
6222 MEDICAURESCUE/SAFETY SUPPLIES 457 3,069 3,500 3,500
6223 BUILDING/CLEANING SUPPLIES 4,308 5,082 4,500 5,000
6224 CLOTHING/PERSONAL EQUIPMENT 4,984 12,091 5,000 15,000
6230 REPAIR/MAINTENANCE SUPP-GENE 3,054 3,079 4,500 4,000
6231 MOBILE EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS 7 256 - 100
6232 SMALL EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS 663 2,262 1,000 2,000
6233 BUILDING REPAIR SUPPLIES 349 1,200 1,000 1,200
6236 POOL REPAIR SUPPLIES 10,296 3,218 1,000 5,000
6240 SMALL TOOLS 285 - 500 500
6243 HEATING OIL, PROPANE AND OTHER FUELS - - 100 1,000
6244 CHEMICALS 8 CHEMICAL PRODUCTS 15,466 18,194 30,000 30,000
6250 LANDSCAPE MATERIAL & SUPPLIES 721 - - -
625T SIGNS & STRIPING MATERIALS 859 2,125 2,000 3,000
6270 COMPUTER SOFTWARE - - 500 1,000
TOTAL PARTS ~ SUPPLIES $ 53,808 $ 67,903 $ 69,500 $ 89,400
SERVICES 8~ OTHER CHARGES
6310 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 28,491 $ 48,406 $ 5,000 $ 7,500
6311 LEGAL 7,234 32,220 - -
6312 ENGINEERING 9,202 959 - -
6314 AUDITING 800 600 900 1,400
6319 MEDICAL SERVICES--OTHER - - 100 100
6320 INSTRUCTORS - - 500 1,000
6346 POSTAGE 827 2,204 2,000 2,500
6347 TELEPHONE SERVICE & LINE CHG 1,35D 2,347 1,500 2,000
6348 MATRIX SERVICE AND REPAIR - - 500 500
6351 PAGER SERVICE FEES - - - -
6353 PERSONAL AUTO/PARKING 33 43 200 200
6355 CELLULAR TELEPHONE SERVICE - 27 300 300
6357 ADVERTISING/PUBLICITY/PROMOTION 689 2,098 6,000 8,000
6358 EMPLOYMENT ADVERTISING - - 500 500
6359 LEGAL NOTICE PUBLICATION - 129 - 100
6370 GENERAL PRINTING AND BINDING 182 1,165 5,000 5,000
6385 INSURANCE 30,100 - 22,600 - 23,700 - 24,900
6405 ELECTRICITY 30,324 32,706 40,000 35,000
~~
City of EaQa~ 2007 Pro osed Bud of O erafin Bud of
P 9 P 9 9
Aquatic Facility -Cascade Bay
Responsible Manager: Cherryl Mesko, Superintendent of Operations
LINE ITEM DETAIL (CONT'D~
Actual Actual Budget Proposed
Acct PERSONAL SERVICES 2004 2005 2006 2007
6410 NATURAL GAS SERVICE
6424 POOL REPAIR/ LABOR
6426 SMALL EQUIPMENT REPAIR LABOR
6427 BUILDING OPERATIONS REPAIR LABOR
6428 FIELDlOTHER EQUIPMENT REPAIR
6475 MISCELLANEOUS
6476 CONFERENCES AND SCHOOLS
6477 LOCAL MEETING EXPENSES
6479 DUES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS
6480 LICENSES, PERMITS AND TAXES
6483 DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY
6487 VISA/MC BANK CHARGES
6535 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
6539 WASTE REMOVAUSANITATION SERV
6563 LANDSCAPING
6569 MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS
OTHER SERVICES AND CHARGES
CAPITAL OUTLAY
6630 OTHER IMPROVEMENTS
6640 OFFICE FURNISHINGS AND EQUIPMENT
6670 OTHER EQUIPMENT
CAPITAL OUTLAY
MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE
6855 MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE
MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE
DEBT SERVICE
PRINCIPAL
INTEREST
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE
RESERVE FOR RENEWAL 8~ REPLACEMENT
TOTAL AQUATIC FACILITY
47,436 58,188 50,000 55,000
10,384 4,738 5,000 7,000
845 1,561 1,000 1,500
1,699 1,269 2,000 1,500
480 170 - 200
- 125 - 200
877 2,321 2,600 3,100
33 70 200 200
315 75 300 500
590 575 1,000 1,500
3,052 - - -
7,537 9,718 8,000 10,000
9,242 6,631 10,000 10,000
1,753 2,150 3,000 3,000
5,223 2,985 7,000 6,000
- 5,863 6,000 7,000
$ 198,698 $ 241,943 $ 182,300 $ 195,700
$ 10,189 $ 372 $ 34,500 $ 39,500
8,929 1,700 2,500 -
17,568 - 8,600 5,000
$ 36,686 $ 2,072 $ 45,600 $ 44,500
$ 88,024 $ 114,700 $ 112,000 $ 91,100
$ 88,024 $ 114,700 $ 112,000 $ 91,100
$ 75,000 $ 80,000 $ 85,000 $ 90,000
84,015 80,415 76,500 72,300
$ 159,015 $ 160,415 $ 161,500 $ 162,300
- - 64,600 64,600
$ 976,805 $ 1,105,717 $ 1,175,200 $ 1,211,500
3.09%
~4
City of ~a~an 2007 Proposed Budget Operating Budget
G:\Capital Renewal & Replacement\Cascade Bay R&R schedule
Cascade Bay R&R schedule
Cascade Bay
Renewal And Replacement Schedule
Item Year Purchased Life C cle Cost Annual Maturi Date
Ice Machine 1999 10 $ 3,239 $ 324 2009
Pertect F
#1 2004 5 4,150 830 2009
#2 2000 5 4,150 830 2005
#3 2001 5 5,000 1,000 2006
Turnstiles
#1 1999 20 11,500 575 2019
#2 1999 20 - 2019
#3 2002 20 2,222 111 2022
HVAC s tem adman 1999 20 14,000 700 2019
Sand Pla Area
Mermaid Fountain 1999 6 3,600 600 2005
Waterfall Water la 1999 6 4,700 783 2005
Kom an Sand Table 1999 6 700 117 2005
Guard Chairs
#1 1999 10 900 90 2009
#2 1999 10 900 90 2009
#3 2001 10 1,360 136 2011
#4 2001 10 1,360 136 2011
A1rConditionin conc. 2000 20 20,000 1,000 2020
Roofin 3 buildin s 1999 20 6,000 300 2019
Shed -2002 20 2,500 125 2022
Funbrellas 0
#1 1999 10 2,257 226 2009
#2 1999 10 2,257 226 2009
#3 1999 10 2,257 226 2009
#4 1999 10 2,257 226 2009
#5 1999 10 2,257 226 2009
#6 1999 10 2,257 226 2009
#7 1999 10 2,257 226 2009
#8 1999 10 2,257 226 2009
#9 1999 10 2,257 226 2009
#10 1999 10 2,257 226 2009
#11 1999 10 2,257 226 2009
#12 Birthda Pa Area 2001 10 2,304 230 2011
Sun Port 2002 10 4,275 428 2012
Walk in Refri erator 1999 20 6,993 350 2019
Walk in Freezer 1999 20 4,017 201 2019
2 door freezer 1999 12 2,604 217 2011
2 door refri erator 1999 12 2,029 169 2011
Refri erator Dis la 1999 12 3,809 317 2011
Sandwich/nacho dis la 1999 7 1,021 146 2006
Mobile Heated Cabinet 1999 10 3,307 331 2009
Undercounter heated cabinet 1999 10 2,498 250 2009
Cash Re asters 5 -
#1 1999 5 - 2004
#2 1999 5 - 2004
#3 1999 5 - 2004
#4 1999 5 - 2004
D amtion Monitor air tester 1999 10 1,760 176 2009
HVAC E ui ment 1999 20 4,000 200 2019
Gas Hot Water Heater 1999 20 4,000 200 2019
Video Securit S tem 2002 10 9,625 963 2012
Suitmates 2 1999 5 2,500 500 2004
PAS tem 1999 10 5,000 500 2009
Water Flume/Wood E Steel 1999 10 73,848 7,385 2009
9/8!2006
~~
G:\Capital Renewal & Replacement\Cascade Bay R&R schedule
Cascade Bay R&R schedule
Cascade Bay
Renewal And Replacement Schedule
Item Year Purchased Life C le Cost Annual Maturi Date
Water Flume/Fiber lass 1999 20 145,000 7,250 2019
Water Flume/Install 1999 20 80,000 4,000 2019
Shi Slide 1999 15 20,800 1,387 2014
Starburst 1999 15 20,500 1,367 2014
Tumblebuckets 1999 15 8,000 533 2014
Deck Chairs
Econo 50 $66.00 1999 10 3,300 330 2009
Loun a 200 $156.75 1999 10 31,350 3,135 2009
Econo 40 $66.00 2001 10 2,640 264 2011
Loun a 10 $156.75 2001 10 1,568 157 2011
Econo 50 $66.00 2002 10 3,300 330 2012
Loun a 40 $160.00 2004 10 6,400 640 2014
Concession Patio Furniture
Ladderback Chair 150 $99.23 1999 15 14,885 992 2014
31" Cafe Table 28 $153.08 1999 15 4,286 286 2014
31"Bar hei ht table 12 $163.79 1999 15 1,966 131 2014
46"x85" oval dinin table 2 $553.08 1999 15 1,106 74 2014
Turbines
#1 1999 20 13,333 667 2019
#2 1999 20 13,333 667 2019
#3 1999 20 13,333 667 2019
#4 1999 20 13,333 667 2019
#5 1999 20 13,333 667 2019
#6 1999 20 13,333 667 2019
Boilers
#1 1999 20 17,500 875 2019
#2 1999 20 17,500 875 2019
#3 1999 20 17,500 875 2019
#4 1999 20 17,500 875 2019
Pum s
#1 1999 20 3,950 198 2019
#2 1999 20 3,950 198 2019
#3 1999 20 3,950 198 2019
#4 1999 20 3,950 198 2D19
Filters
#1 1999 20 25,000 1,250 2019
#2 1999 20 25,000 1,250 2019
Pulsar Chemical E ui ment 2002 7 8,000 1,168 2009
Room Heaters 1999 20 3,800 190 2019
Stranco Controllers
#1 1999 15 3,000 200 2014
#2 1999 15 3,000 200 2014
Irri ation Control S tem 1999 15 20,000 1,333 2014
LMI Pum s
#1 1999 5 1,200 240 2004
#2 1999 5 1,200 240 2004
#3 1999 5 1,200 240 2004
#4 1999 5 1,200 240 2004
#5 1999 5 1,200 240 2004
#6 1999 5 1,200 240 2004
Floorin 2002 20 20,000 1,000 2022
Phone S tem 2001 7 21,000 3,000 2008
Walkie Talkies 2004 5 6,000 1,200 2009
Walk Behind Lawn Mower 2004 8 3,000 375 2012
Total $ 900,597 S 64,563
9/8!2006
8~,
CITY OF EAGAN
JUSTIFICATION OF CAPITAL OUTLAYS REQUESTS
1. Department Dept. No. Account No.
Cascade Bay 222 6630
2. Give Description and Quantity of Item Requested. Indicate Date Desired.
Upgrade front entrance to capture data and expedite guests.
May 1, 2007
3. Describe the necessity for and/or benefits or savings expected from this item
• Tracking daily and season pass guests is currently handled through a turnstile and is dependent upon seasonal staff to ensure
that people are entering and exiting in the right location, that the counter is reset at the appropriate times and that the
information is logged on a daily basis. The POS system serves as an efficient cross-check for daily admissions but can be labor
intensive.
• The photo id cards set up for season passes have always had the capability to scan visits to the park; much like the fitness
membership scanning system at ECC. The option has never been implemented due to the inaccessibility of scanning
equipment needed to connect to the network. The ability to allow for this level of interconnectivitywiIl require significant
changes to the front entrance.
• Providing for this level of tracking will help in recovering data and trends and can help to monitor things as simple as season
pass use and peak/low attendance times for future marketing. This will also provide a higher level of cross referencing options
and is planned to provide a more efficient use of space to minimize staff redundancy and get guests into the facility as quickly
as possible.
4. If the item requires an increase in personal services for the activity, state the new job title(s) contingent upon the item.
5. Indicate any expenses necessary to place this item in operation and whether these expenses are included in your budget request.
• Will require a coordinated effort with IT to determine viable options that might be considered for implementation.
6. List any item which will be replaced by this purchase. State recommendations for disposition of this item. For example, trade-in,
salvage, discard, etc.
ESTIMATED COSTS
Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Trade-In Net Total Cost
1 $39,500
$39,500
$
$39,500
~~
CITY OF EAGAN
JUSTIFICATION OF CAPITAL OUTLAYS REQUESTS
I . Department Dept. No. Account No.
Cascade Bay 222 6670
2. Give Description and Quantity of Item Requested. Indicate Date Desired.
Security Cameras and Web cameras
Spring 2007
3. Describe the necessity for and/or benefits or savings expected from this item
• The security cameras provide a level of operational security and accountability. There is an increasing need to more broadly
monitor the security of the site by installing additional cameras in the park. This has provided a higher degree of comfort given
the number of patrons in the park and the amount of money that passes through on a daily basis.
• The addition of a second web camera will provide more information to the public, particularly on busy days, when they call to
inquire if the park is at capacity. The web site is quickly becoming the first stop for information and the ability to view the park
in real time provides a higher level of service and response to potential visitors.
4. If the item requires an increase in personal services for the activity, state the new job title(s) contingent upon the item.
5. Indicate any expenses necessary to place this item in operation and whether these expenses are included in your budget request.
6. List any item which will be replaced by this purchase. State recommendations for disposition of this item. For example, trade-in,
salvage, discard, etc.
ESTIMATED COSTS
Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Trade-[n Net Total Cost
2 $2500
$5
000
$
, $5,000
8y
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O
~
p
I~ Q
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O t
p OO M V'
N lD O O •- O V N O N Q1 V ~_ h N O f0 N M 117 ';V: (O O (O
fD W O E N fD N ~ O r M M N Q Q R O N ~ ~N: f0 n Q)
GI ~ M
V N O) N N B O O Q1 V ~ f0 O fD N ~r: ~ NV M
>T
R O ~
f r
N O ~
(n N
m
e
r>:f to yr vs tFr rn tff a7 ~ v~ vi
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O N N N 1~ to O M (O r (O 1~ N N
B O O O V lt) ~ In N Q7 O] N N N
M f
m Q O) Q
O M
(D to
f~ U
l0 ~ n V N N n t` 1
D ~
~ ~ O ~
C
~ ~
O ~
3
N lC
~
U
m ~ ` ~ Z
j a ~
f» of Hi tH to to of f9 U Q K
lp M a0 M N N O M t` O N O O f0 I~ O t` N fA o~ ~ ~~~ ~~ O O N f~
~~
pp
N CON V O V I~
~ O M 00 V M S M ~ !b
~ O
M W fD O
f0 ~ f~ O W
' er O O
O ~ O
N O
M ~!7
O 1((
1
55 O O r M
'O~ f0 O O H
~
N A M 1~ N (P V 1~ M f~ ~ M N to O Q V M V W O aD ~ 0. V O N
O f0 N N .- ~ N '- t` (D ~ Q R f0 O O f0 O [D f0 O M
~
C V
N Q fD .- N O O 1C) M A N N M Q M : N IA
M fig Vf fR Vf fA V`T t9 >~. to
t~ M 1~ In m M O M
O 117 V' R 1~ O N r
O N ~
7 M W V O
I~ O N M ~
M O 117
O M N
d0 1~
~ O
1~ ::Q:: O O ~
.:~;< O O lb
M 0 Ol N~ V O) V (`') 1~ W N a0 O M 1~ fp M GD N M :~5<f t0 0 0 1~
m
~
o Y ao W N M V lA
~
j fp N ap M lA
r
O O M 00 N
V N ro M Q 7 Q7
fD f` 00
N t0
M f0
M ;;40 R N QI u1
f fD n n n
C V ~
N ~ ~ 00 !n V N O O O N N
h N Q
f'
W fA fPr fR V`1 fA fA fH N9 fR-.. fA
W O M O O O O (O
N O O O N to (O ~^
O) N
In 117 N Q R
W O lp N to O N
O
V CO
U7 O
M fii~: O O N (O
>[<7. O O lA N
In V M Q N~ Q ~ O V V ~~ aD O c O Q ('~ I~ n :h. O O M (O
'D 7 M j N I~ N lA V 00 ~ V ~ In /D A V O N N 1~ O N O ?ffY: I~ 111 M Q
"'
C m O N M O `-~ N N a0 fD N M O f0 M (D M
O Q) ~:t7~"' O n V
M
L N N Q W ~ N N N 7 '- ~ t70 a0
l
0 e-• ~ ''-
N ~ fy Hf fR fR to fA fA fA ~; fH
aW
N F M M R N 7 f~ W
O M O N M N
O N M
h 00 N O N
N M O r O
O O O
O 01 Q m Q
N (D O 11')
O W
I~ -Ui: O O (~pp o0
~:L*:- D O O]
W O ~ r W I~ N l0 V N f0 ~ (n O O M h N O N N OO In M N f!? 0 0 0) v
7
O NO V N a0 O N to W O M
M M
7 V N 'C o0
In IA O W O
lP Q M
O O M O O
t` (O I~
O O
M M
CO V O C
M: f0 r
~, Z O~ N V O ~ Q!
t` ~ N O
V .-
f0
1~
O M
Q N Q
'~ W fff fR fR V'J ff) tl'f fA fA UT d`f
LL W
U Z
Na fOONNO nn f0 M ONMN 1~ OIL 00
~ fD h
ro :~Fk:.000M
ppp~ oorao
~
Q X ro (DN o
!T In N O O V N N
(O M
00 nVQ V
fD V N O rn
N om
O N rl
I~ M Q
V M f!a 0 0 Q7 N
Q W ~ j ~ Q 0 M N N O f0 (O M If') I() r N O N O !b
N ti 01
M IIJJ~~: O N m l17
f0
~:L'l.' lt) f0
N V ~ N N ~ O M N Q O M I~ ~ 117 m N O M
W N
7 Q
W f9 to f9 t9 f9 t9 49 ui '.~ fH
W
000N O M
O l0 O M N
N 1~
Q
N
W
V MNO
I~ N 1~ N
O
(O
O T
O (D
Q
V
M
~
47
fD
00 N
{¢p3. O O M tD
R .- lA ~ V O I~ M f` r 7 N~ N O 0 0 O .
- (D ::EE1.~ O O l'~ [O
~ 3 V tD O) N COO CO n
~ ~ (00 n ::~: ~~ M !b
V ~~ N N Q f0
N N
o0 N O
O O M r
N
a N r
v> e- Eff as tR a9 u4 a9 a9
~ Inaoo m nrn
NMO In M o
r rn
o mfooao
u7vvln M oM
o N
~ N
fo m
n woomin
P..:;oofC)M
C CO Q K N _ V O N N O) OD O W O to V :~? O O t0 M
N M Q' N IA n lA N O) ~
~ O Of M
O O M
It) O
M N V :'~2 O l() N N
:: 117 W ~ r
p~j 7 r ^ ~ m
~ ~ N
~ P ~ ~
~ U
r Q
VT to fA fR to f9 Vf N :~: V!
:;: ;.
C
G1 N
N
mod.. C
rn c E y
N = ~ N N w
C = N !V ~ N m ~ ~ N to O C O ~
a p ~
c L
N m rn
N ~
c o.
~ ~ `~ ~ ~ m `m
C m c
~
~ _
W
° ~
~
n
c c d
LL
~
~ ~ y ~ O m U - ~
O1 ~
O H ~ E
w
N Y~ ~ C ~ N C d ~ C R ~ 16 C ~ ~ N U O
O
c Ul p7
` 07 O
z N R L
• Of y OI 0-
c o y W
C O T IL `1 J
m c
.
~
~ ~ c
' Z
a u ~ .c ~ a p
~
, Z ~ p 3 a~ o. ..
N
'
~ N C
N C
~ ~ C oa W p.
~ N
' O
~ `
U ~ c ~ c d N
o E
" ~ m.~U-o X16 w `m y w N c'n
xl
,n °~
0 a ,
~ d O ~ a > - > ~ ~
E
'
.
U0
N ~ ~
c a
~ O c
l o Z aw °~ w ~ 2
i
cam at1.
c ° m
'
Q y
R d
~
~
O
~
U_
U
~
R
c
1Q
~ ~ C ~ U
U y L t `
C 0 O N i' f/1 ~ w N
1/1 ~ ~ L ~ A ~C G ~ "O U ~
d .
>
l6 ~ O~~ O p
a y
O ~
~ .
a
O X d lC O Gl f6 p N p O N
z
~o p
~ O
~ d O 'O 'O 3~
~~QQlnz
o! c~~
oc~c~c~~ ~t-
z ~ waaUU~ UF- ~~ r
85
Agenda Information Memo
September 14, 2006, Eagan City Council
VI1.2007 EAGAN COMMUNITY CENTER BUDGET
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED:
• To provide direction to staff on the 2006 Community Center operating
budget, and to direct that it be placed on a future City Council Meeting
Consent Agenda for formal ratification.
• To approve or direct to the September 25, 2006 regular City Council
Meeting action to authorize implementation of the proposed organizational
changes during 2006.
Background
The following general parameters were among those listed prior to the adoption
of the original 2003/2004 Operating Plan and continue to provide the framework
in which the Community Center operates and is the basis from which budgets
continue to be prepared.
1. The facility is looked at as a whole. Although, certain
areas/programs/operations are relatively independent from an
operational standpoint, there is a great deal of interaction among the
various components of the building. Items like days and hours of
operation, memberships, programming, and rental opportunities and
rates have impacts across the entire facility. The challenge of
budgeting details while looking at the big picture has constantly been
present in preparing and reviewing this material.
2. The facility is being viewed as a community center as opposed to a
private sector health club. Community centers provide some programs
and community/citizen opportunities that in and of themselves are not
self-sustaining from a cost perspective. This is a significantly different
model than you see in the private sector where only activities that
produce revenue or contribute directly to revenues are offered and a
clear bottom line financial analysis drives al! decisions.
3. The success of the project will ultimately be determined over the long-
term. There is a delicate balance between ashort-term successful
opening that impresses participants and makes them want to return
and to renew memberships and long-term community acceptance of
and support for the facility.
4. The importance of successfully marketing the facility and developing
an acceptable market niche to maximize revenues while blending in
S~
the community center philosophy cannot be overstated.
5. Although the facility is being operated as an enterprise fund from an
accounting standpoint, there is a dependence on other City operating
funds incorporated into this plan.
Modifications to the original parameters include the following:
1. A renewal or replacement account is being funded beginning in 2005.
As part of the construction close out financing package approved by
the City Council, the Renewal and Replacement account opened with
a starting balance of $315,724. This balance resulted from the City.
Council direction to reduce original spending on furniture, fixtures and
equipment and other construction costs.
2. Operational experience has resulted in necessary modifications to
policies and procedures which are reflected in the budget; continued
modifications are incorporated into the proposed 2007 budget.
3. Startup issues have been mostly resolved and the Community Center
has become established in its market niche.
Revenues
After a significant increase in user revenues projected for 2006 resulting from a
rate increase, the 2007 budget relies on various activities to generate more
utilization without any membership rate changes. The antenna lease revenue
transfer used to balance the operating budget is increased from $141,000 in
2006 to $225,800 in the proposed 2007 budget.
Enclosed on page is a copy of the detailed revenue estimates for 2007 as
compared to the budg t for 2006 and actuals for 2004 and 2005.
The revenue estimates, in general, are fairly aggressive, are based on more
operational experience than in previous years, and rely on continued extensive
and successful marketing of the facility in combination with high customer
acceptance and satisfaction.
Expenditures
Excluding depreciation and debt service from the total for both years, the 2007
Eagan Community Center budget is proposed at $1,588,100, an overall increase
of $126,700, or 8.7% from the 2006 budget of $1,461,400. Factors contributing
to that above average increase are included in the department budget narrative
to follow. Since debt service is paid through a tax levy resulting from the
successful referendum, it is not included in this operating budget. The bond
payment including both principal and interest to retire the outstanding debt for
the building is $1,133,200 for 2007 compared to $1,138,000 for 2006.
Depreciation is also not included in the operating budget as the renewal 8
g?
replacement account is used in lieu of depreciation and is fully funded in the
2007 operating budget.
Included in the proposed budget as it is presented is an expansion of the
concession operation to include a coffee bar. The concept has previously been
reviewed by the Community Center Operations Committee. The information as
presented will allow the City Council to determine the financial impact of the
public policy decision to include or not include the coffee bar.
Coffee Bar Operation:
• The potential consideration of a coffee and beverage service operation
proposed by ETAB for operation within the Eagan Community Center was
brought to the City Council and has been studied since the spring 2005.
• The culmination of the study resulted in the analysis of three potential
operations;
0 1) fully incorporated into the existing concessions operation,
0 2) a mobile cart operation and
0 3) fully incorporated into the Oasis.
• The most cost effective consideration was to incorporate it into the
existing concessions operation but not operated as part of the Oasis teen
center.
• The combined concessions operation is incorporated into the 2007 budget
with the following considerations:
o Start-up capital costs estimated at $27,000.
o Additional merchandise for sale at $9,800
o Additional staffing at $14,000
o Additional revenue projected at $32,000
• The Council may wish to approach this project on a trial basis in which the
infrastructure components are put into place (electrical/plumbing),
equipment leasing options are investigated and compared to purchasing
options and the public is made aware of this trial venture for a designated
period of time; 12-18 months, for example.
• The trial basis would allow the Council to evaluate the operation during
the 2008 budget cycle to determine if it has been a worthwhile experiment
and whether or not it should be continued.
Personnel
The proposed complement of regular personnel for 2007 reflects organizational
changes recommended by staff resulting from a review upon the resignation of
the Community Center Manager. That particular position was essential as final
construction of the building was completed and the facility was opened and
operated in the early years. The recent review has determined that it would be
beneficial to the operations to eliminate the Community Center position and to
replace it with two (2) Manager on Duty positions that would provide more °on
the floor" hours in which better customer service could be offered to the users of
8~
the facility. The following points provide additional background as a basis for the
recommended organizational changes:
• The original organization focused on the skills and staff needed to open a
major facility.
• After 3 full years of operation we have a better idea of the amount of
traffic, the daily needs of the building and the staffing to best meet those
needs.
• Having the community center manager vacant from May through August
allowed for the review and analysis of how best to meet the growing
demands of the building.
• It is proposed that resources would be best allocated to providing front
line service to visitors. The existing full-time management staff has
absorbed more of the day-to-day operation that was originally part of the
community center manager's responsibility.
• To focus on providing a higher level of customer service at the front
counter and in the building the following changes are proposed:
o Eliminate the Community Center Manager Position ($104,517)
o Adding two FTEs; Manager on Duty positions that will be stationed
at the front counter from 5:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. to better serve the
needs of the public using the building as well as to provide more
crossover with the overnight custodial staff. ($92,642 total)
o Continue the day-to-day workload of existing full-time staff and
assess, over time, any future job related changes to existing staff.
o Assess and change the work hours of the full-time staff to better
meet the needs of a building open 117+ hours per week.
o Continue the long range planning and oversight by the
Superintendent of Operations.
• This staffing change dovetails into the overall Parks & Recreation
organizational changes identified by Virchow Kraus, which have been
implemented over the last two years.
Enclosed on page ~_ is a copy of the proposed organizational structure.
Capital Outlay
The proposed 2007 budget includes an allocation of $80,200 for capital outlay to
purchase the following:
1. $4,400 -New equipment for the fitness center.
2. $27,000 -This allocation would be used to add room darkening shades to
the Oaks ($20,000) and Gym ($7,000). The high degree of natural light,
while a great amenity, causes problems with day time presentations in the
Oaks and with late day gym activities.
3. $4,800 -Various office furnishings and equipment used in the normal
course of business.
4. $2,000 -Kitchen Upgrades, Phase 1 of a three phase upgrade to the
kitchen totaling $6,000.
8~(
5. $15,000 -Three drop down screens for the Oaks, Phase 1 of an overall
AV and related equipment improvement totaling $75,000.
6. $27,000 -Estimated capital start up costs related to the potential coffee
bar. Additional detail is presented above in the expenditure section of the
memo.
This capital outlay is proposed to be funded through operations since the fitness
equipment is new and the office equipment it is not included on the renewal and
replacement account.
In addition the following items totaling $19,000 are proposed to be purchased
from the Renewal & Replacement account and are therefore not included in the
2007 proposed operational budget:
1. $4,000 -- Atrium VCT Vinyl Floor Replacement
2. $15,000 -- Replacement Carpet -Oaks Prefunction Space
Enclosed on~pages !;-~ through ~~ is a copy of the proposed line item
2007 budget.
Enclosed on page ~ is a copy of the Capital Renewal and Replacement
schedule for the Community Center.
Marketing
The fourth item listed above under the general parameters around which all
budgets and operating plans have been developed and approved states, "The
importance of successfully marketing the facility and developing an acceptable
market niche to maximize revenues while blending in the community center
philosophy cannot be overstated." All City staff and especially those working at
the Community Center are committed to this message and have been working
diligently from day 1 to implement a comprehensive and well thought out
marketing approach supported by specific objectives and expected outcomes.
Enclosed on pages r(~~ through ~ is a copy of a summary of
marketing activities thatt h ve been undertaken thus far in 2006 and an
explanation of the marketing/coordination with the Eagan Convention and
Visitors Bureau. The success of this approach and the overall long-term
progress that is being made is demonstrated in the membership numbers
included in the revenue section of this memo.
Conclusion
The Community Center clearly accomplished a successful beginning and has
established a niche in the Community. While many challenges have been
addressed, many remain and will be aggressively met into the future. This
proposed budget incorporates previous City Council direction and is overall a
°stay the course" budget with minor modifications, primarily related to staffing
and customer service. It also allows for continued flexibility as the City goes
forward.
~D
c~
a~
N
Q
o ~
.c
. ~ ~ ~' ~
'
U
~ o ~ ~
>
0
~ U 0
C3.
iN
~
~' O
'~+ i-w ~ ~ ¢ U -i
Rr ~
N Ste. ~ ~ O ~ ~
N ~
.
~ Qr .~~" N o L "b ~ ~ C3.
U O •~ ~ ~~ y ~ `+ O
c~ '., p ~^
v ~ 0 ~
3 ~
U ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~-
'~ c ¢ 3 ~ -o o
s.. o ~ ~ .~
~ .~
w N G b Q
~
C N ~Sr"
~
... C~
o ~ ~
, ~, c~
E--! H F~ !- ~ ~ ~
~ cd M
P. p, 0.i `..r-, y ~ w
1 ~ to
~
^~ O .~ ~ O
~ ~ ~..+
cd ~ W
~ ~
C ~ G
~ ~
iti
~
bQ ~ ~ O.
O
~ ~
~
~ .~
~ ~
. >" "O C N
O o ~ ~
`~ ,~ O ~ o
'~ U 3 ,
~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~
cd ~ ~ ~ o ~, ~ 0 0
a ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ b _~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
~
TJ N ~
~ O ~ cd a~
-~
'~ o
4,
~
O ~ ., ~
O cd ~ by
~ ~
~ ~
. ,.~
t-,
~ ~ ~
~ 0 3
.~ ~ °o, ~
N ~ a >, ~ +., o ,~ ~
C/] ~ o :o ~~:~,~ (~
~
U ff ~
~ b ~ c ~ O ~ ~ ~ >, ~' O v,
~ ~ Ca ~ c E" J, ~ ,~ O O ~ bq v
' o
1 rY--I O ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ .~-d , ~ ~ (ti
1 r+ tom.
F" yam,, a ~ S ~ ~(~" 4- ~ ~
~
awu.a o '° o ~'~ a~..;~
o
~'
~ ~ '~
~ y C]
~ `~
O U
F'"
G~ ..N.
p ~, ~ cd
cd '
~
~ s. 'C O
~ ~
~ G
y
~
U o °
.
~n ~
• ~ ,
W
~ ~ o .n
3 Q U ~, •~ r.
W a,
' ° o °' ,~ U-a-3
o ~ U ~ on3 ~ W ~~~
o
`~ W ~ '~ °
~ ~ ,~ ~ ° ~
o
~
4-' ~ ~ ~
~ ° v '~ °' 0
~ o ~ ~ a °~' ~? ~
o
oq '~ ~ U c o ~ 'b ~ ~ W ~ ri x ~
~ ~ ~ ~;¢ ~~ o ° c
v .b
~ [x. 01 ~ U ~ ~
^
a ~ • • •
~
~
~ p y c
v ~
d
~i i O ~
~ U
O ~"'
G. w
~1
City of E8Q811 2007 Ado ted Bud et O eratin Bud et
P 9 P g g
Community Center
Responsible Manager: Juli Johnson, Director of Parks & Recreation
REVENUE SUMMARY
2004 2005 2006 2007
Actual Actual Budget Estimate
4304 Personal trainers 4,282 30,257 37,500 47,400
4305 Equipment rental 5,602 7,080 3,000 15,000
4310 Park program revenue 74,483 22,216 15,400 15,500
4312 Concessions sales 28,637 38,994 33,900 73,000
4314 Merchandise sales 2,910 2,502 3,700 4,000
4316 Group sales 69,413 63,202 98,800 78,600
4318 Daily admissions 67,450 70,064 78,100 73,000
4321 Memberships 352,657 501,259 706,600 688,500
4323 Vending 6,148 5,675 6,000 7,500
4324 Room rentals 131,269 188,473 249,900 260,000
4326 Facility rentals 6,221 1,221 1,500 4,500
4328 Contract revenue 47,139 44,112 57,000 85,000
4621 ECVB rent 7,333 3,621 9,000 10,300
4610 Interest income 22,292 37,777 20,000 -
825,836 1,016,453 1,320,400 1,362,300
Transfer in--antenna lease revenue 190,856 300,220 141,000 225,800
Total revenues 1,016,692 1,316,673 1,461,400 1,588,100
~a
CicJ or Eau
2007 Adopted Budget
Operating Budget
Community Center
Responsible Manager: Juli Johnson, Director of Parks & Recreation
PURPOSE ~ DESCRIPTION
The purpose of the Community Center is to:
• Provide a positive environment for residents and guests of
all ages to gather
• Encourage and help build a sense of community through a
wide range of recreational and social opportunities
• Promote health and wellness in the community
• Maintain a high level of service, accessibility and
professionalism to expand revenue options to ensure the
viability of this resource to the community
The Community Center is responsible for the following functions:
• Facilitate a wide variety of programs and classes for members and non-members
• Market and operate a wide range of meeting spaces and rental opportunities for the community
• Capture a high level of revenues to best offset the operational costs of the building
• Protect the City's community investment by maintaining the integrity and value of the building and its
amenities
• Operate and maintain a quality fitness center and wellness programs
• Provide space, programming and opportunities for all ages
• Create a welcoming atmosphere and solicit input from users to best determine how to meet existing
needs and identify future growth opportunities
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
2007
Description 2005 Actual 2006 Budget Proposed_
Groups in the Blast 83 85 90
Birthday parties 473 490 500
Meetings
Open gym program participants
Group fitness attendance (included in membership)
Memberships -year round
Personal Training
Weddings
Average attendance in building per day
660 700 750
4,914 5,000 5,100
11,866 12,000 12,300
1,455 1,600 1,750
884 900 1,000
71 80 85
N/A 1,000 1,100
q3
City of Ea~a 2007 Ado ted Bud et o erat-n Bud et
P 9 A g 9
Community Center
Responsible Manager: Juli Johnson, Director of Parks 8~ Recreation
Expenditures by Category
Parts 8
Reserve for Supplies
R&R 5%
a°i°
Services &
Debt Service Other
0% Merchandise Capital Charges
for Resale Outlay 20%
1% 3%
HIGHLIGHTS 8c CHANGES
Overview:
The proposed 2007 Eagan Community Center
(ECC) budget is up $126,700, or 8.7%, over 2006.
The ECC continues to expand the number of users
that find their way to this wonderful City amenity.
Tracking the number of people in the first half of
2006 indicates that on average there are 1,000
people in the building each day. The budget for
2007 reflects more growing pains and is designed to
find more efficient ways to staff the building to
provide the level of service that the public has
demanded. It also reflects a clearer understanding of what the public is looking for and how they want to use this
building. The focus for 2007 will be to right-size the overall staffing based on peak demand and develop a
mechanism to crossover staff between the three specialty facilities. Analysis of use patterns and service
expectations will drive staff re-structuring options.
The proposed budget reflects the Council's direction to formalize budget implications for providing a coffee bar
element within the Community Center. The budget includes the capital necessary for this operation along with
necessary staff and merchandise/supplies in addition to the standard concessions operation.
The increase to the personnel portion of the budget is 5.2%. This is primarily due to the addition of 2 full-time
Manager on Duty positions, the elimination of the Community Center Manager position, and the increased
seasonal staffing required to operate the coffee bar. Other operating expenses are increased by 9% over 2006,
primarily due to underestimating gas and electrical costs and projected capital improvements to the building. The
capital expenditures are generally offset by revenue projections or are covered under renewal and replacement.
The budget also corrects an overestimation of revenue in some areas.
HiohlisahtlChans~e 1: With the vacancy of the Community Center Manager position, a reorganization is
proposed. The Community Center Manager position is proposed to be eliminated and two full-time Manager on
Duty (MOD) positions for the front counter would essentially replace the eliminated position. The MOD model,
along with part-time position descriptions and pay will be mirrored at all special facilities to reach a level of
operating consistency.
Financial Impact: Net impact of the reorganization is a small savings of about $5,000. Elimination of the
Community Center Manager reduces the budget by $104,500. The two MOD positions represent an increase of
$92,600 ($46,300 each) including benefits. Potential classification changes for existing positions are estimated at
a $12,300 increase. Part-time staff will decrease $6,000 as part of the reorganization.
Service Level Impact: This will provide the high level of consistent front counter staff needed for a facility that is
open 117 hours per week. It will also provide a crossover with the evening maintenance staff for a more
coordinated operation
Hisrlhlis~hfJChans~e 2: Coffee Bar Addition
Financial Impact: Personnel costs associated with the first year's operation are projected at $14,000 and
concession merchandise (in addition to the existing operation) is projected at $9,800. Projected revenue is
$35,000 and maintains the cost of goods criteria established for all concessions operations. The capital
investment to put the coffee bar in place within the existing concessions operation is estimated at $27,000.
Another consideration would be to look at leasing options for equipment to provide better flexibility in testing this
operation. With leasing, however, there would be costs associated with retrofitting the existing space to
accommodate appropriate equipment
4'{
City of Earn 2007 Ado ted Bud et O eratin Bud et
P 9 P g 9
Community Center
Responsible Manager: Juli Johnson, Director of Parks & Recreation
His~hlis~htlChance 2 (cont'd):
Service Level Impact: This would provide the option for higher quality coffee and beverages to be served from
the existing concessions operation
His~hlichtlChans~e 3: The budget increase in electrical and natural gas charges is 64% and 29% respectively.
The budget projections for 2006 were based on 2004 actual costs (the facility's first full year of operation) and the
first quarter of 2005, which did not reflect the busy and warm summer wedding events requiring a higher demand
for air conditioning compared to the 2004 summer. With line item cuts to Other Services and Charges the overall
increase in this area is 13% (to offset the combined 46% increase in electric and gas.)
Financial Impact: $65,000 increase for the 2007 budget year. This increase will position the budget to better
reflect actual costs. The increasing cost of natural gas will continue to provide a challenge in estimating costs
Service Level Impact: As the activity grows in this building the expectation for a comfortable and efficient
building continues to expand
His~hlis~htlChans~e 5: Computer software for room reservations that can be accommodated on-line. The public
has expressed a strong interest in having instant access to room availability
Financial Impact: $7,000 for 2007 and maintenance thereafter
Service Level Impact: This service will provide a more prompt response to users who want to simply see what
options they might have for room availability. This will certainly respond to the many questions and concerns
people have raised about why they can't get information more immediately
HichlighlJChance 6: The addition of room-darkening shades in the Oaks banquet rooms and west windows in
the gym
Financial Impact: $20,000 for the Oaks and $7,000 for the gym
Service Level Impact: The expanded reserved use of the Oaks meeting rooms during the day has created some
challenges for presentations because of the high degree of natural light. This would provide expanded day rental
options in these spaces. The gym shades would offer some relief to late day sun affecting gym use. It is expected
that increased rental revenue over the next several years will offset these expenditures
His~hlis~htlChans~e 7: The addition of three drop-down screens in the Oaks meeting rooms
Financial Impact: $15,000 for 3 large screens that can be hidden in the ceiling to not impact the visual beauty of
the space when they are not in use
Service Level Impact: There is a growing demand for audio/visual equipment in the building. Current renters are
hiring AV specialists to bring in much of the equipment that might be provided by the ECC. This would certainly
meet the growing need and provide an expanded revenue stream. It is projected that the costs can be recovered
within 5 years. This is proposed to be the highest priority of audiolvisual enhancements that will be proposed to
be added to the banquet/meeting rooms in the next 3-5 years
His~hliphtlChans~e 8: R&R projects are reviewed each year to make sure they are accurate and appropriately
scheduled. There were several items that were scheduled for 2007 that have been pushed to later years because
they do not need to be replaced at this time. The two remaining items include the replacement of the carpet in the
pre-function area as well as the vinyl the in the lobby area near the fitness center. These items are not shown as
part of the capital outlay but are identified on the detail sheets
Financial Impact: The projected cost to replace both items is $19,000. They will then be added back onto the
R&R schedule for future replacement in 5 years
Service Level Impact: These improvements will maintain the visual and functional beauty of the building
~5
Cit of Ea ao 2007 Ado ted Bud et O eratin Bud et
~ Q P 9 P g 9
Community Center
Responsible Manager: Juli Johnson, Director of Parks & Recreation
EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
Actual Actual Budget Proposed
Expenditure 2004 2005 2006 2007
Personal Services $ 721,483 $ 813,998 $ 905,000 952,200
Parts and Supplies 48,616 56,983 82,100 75,900
Services and Other Charges 194,903 282,346 287,200 324,500
Capital Outlay 31,442 11,895 34,500 80,200
Merchandise for Resale 20,248 30,651 31,000 30,800
Reserve for Renewal & Replacement - 120,800 121,600 124,500
Total $1,016,692 $1,316,673 $1,461,400 $1,588,100
l ~k'
City of Ea~aa
Community Center
2007 Adopted Budget
Responsible Manager: Juli Johnson, Director of Parks & Recreation
POSITION INVENTORY
Operating Budget
Personnel 2004 2005 2006 2007 Hours
Community Center Manager 1 1 1 0 -
Maintenance Engineer 1 1 1 1 2,080
Fitness Coordinator 1 1 1 1 2,080
Rental Room Coordinator 1 1 1 1 2,080
Facility Operations Coordinator 1 1 1 1 2,080
Lead Custodian/Maintenance 1 1 1 1 2,080
Custodial 2 3 3 3 6,240
MOD 0 0 0 2 4,160
Total 8 9 9 10 20,800
2007 WORK PLAN
Activity
Routine
1 Respond to public comments or requests via phone or in person
2 Provide support to the day-to-day fitness center
3 Daily maintenance and cleaning of building
4 Provide support to the day-to-day concessions operation
5 Register participants in recreation programs, memberships or daily admissions
6 Set up and change room configurations to accommodate multiple events
7 Develop promotional materials for specialized uses: BlastlRentals/Fitness
8 Manage staff scheduling and training to meet the demands of the building
9 Recruit, hire, train and supervise temporary and part-time employees
10 Provide work direction to ensure high level of customer service is maintained
11 Manage the building infrastructure to ensure efficient, safe and clean environment
12 Establish and manage fitness programs, classes and memberships
13 Coordinate the rentals of all available spaces within the building
14 Provide input and directions pertaining to policies, budget and general operation of ECC
15 Develop and manage capital improvements and long-range planning
16 Develop and manage policies & procedures that best meet the needs of the community
17 Coordinate outdoor events with indoor activities
~~
~lt~ Of ~B~flll 2007 Ado ted Bud et O eratin Bud et
P 9 P 9 g
This page left intentionally blank.
v~
City of Ea~a~ 2007 Ado ted Bud et O eratin Bud et
A 9 P 9 9
Community Center
Responsible Manager: Juli Johnson, Director of Parks & Recreation
LINE ITEM DETAIL
Acct
PERSONAL SE}71ACES Actual
2004 Actual
2005 Budget
2006 Proposed
2007
6110 SALARIES AND WAGES-REGULAR $ 340,395 $ 400,940 $ 429,400 $ 445,900
6112 ONI7~f1ME-REGlAJ1R - - -
6130 SALARIES ANDWAG~TQVPORARY 253,041 259,674 315,500 319,000
6131 O~/ERTIME-TEIVPORARY - - -
6142 PERAr000RDINATED 28,683 32,740 23,700 27,900
6144 FICA 43,307 47,858 57,000 58,500
6151 HEALTH INSURANCE 45,882 60,103 73,000 89,000
6152 LIFE INSURANCE 697 818 - -
6154 DISABILITY-LONG TERM 1,214 1,568 - -
6155 WOF~ OONPENSATION 8,264 10,307 6,400 11,900
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES 721,483 813,999 905,000 952,200
PARTS 8~ SUPPLIES
6210 OFFICE SUPPLIES 2,940 2,279 4,000 3,000
6211 OFFICE PRINTED MATERIAUFORNS 909 647 3,100 2,000
6212 OFFICE SMALL EQUIPMENT 16 1,004 5,100 2,200
6220 OPERATING SUPPLIES-GE]VEI~AL 21,687 16,199 21,750 14,500
6222 MEDICALIRESCUE/SAFETY SUPPLJES 17 53 300 200
6223 BUILDINC-JCLEANINGSLIPPLIES 12,433 17,756 16,000 14,300
624 CLOTHING~PEfZSONAL EQUIPMENT 1,896 3,210 3,000 3,000
627 RECREATION EQUIPMENT SUPPLIES 1,139 4,381 7,800 8,000
6230 REPAIR/MAIM~]VANCESUPP-GF]VL 2,58:1 1,899 2,500 2,500
6232 SMALL EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS 115 1,495 9,000 7,000
6233 BUILDINGREPAIRSUPPLIES 2,774 5,968 6,500 7,000
638 C011M0.1NICATION SYSTE7IA PARTS 2 - - -
6?AO SMALL TOOLS 424 1,258 800 800
6241 SHOP MATERIALS 163 587 660 600
6244 CHEMC1aLS & CHEMCAL PRODUCTS 1,448 248 1,000 2,300
6257 SIGNS & STRIPING MATERIAL 70 - 500 1,400
6270 OOIVPIlTER SOFTWARE - - 100 7,100
TOTAL PARTS & SUPPLIES 48,616 56,963 82,100 75,900
SEIRVICE.S 8~ Ol}fR CHARGES
6310 PROFESSIONAL SERI/ICES - 1,243 3,000 $ 1,500
6314 AUDITING 600 500 1,600 2,100
6315 FINANCIAL- NON-AUDIT - 550 600 600
6320 INSTRUQTORS - 135 - -
6346 POSTAGE 1,636 1,681 6,000 2,500
6347 TEIFPI--IONE SERVICE & LINE CHG 1,801 3,609 5,600 4,400
6348 MATRIX SERVICE & REPAIR 63 - 500 500
6353 PERSOIV~V_ AUTCYPARI4NG 1,302 1,526 2,000 1,800
R9
Cit
f l;
y o
a~Q 2007 Ado ted Bud et
P 9 Operating Budget
Community Center
Responsible Manager: Juli Johnson, Director of Parks & Recreation
6 i56 C~11.ULAR TEIEPE~ONE SERI/ICE 997 263 1,000 500
6357 GENERALADWERTISING 3,075 4,994 11,600 13,000
6359 LEGAL NOTICE PUBIJCATICN 132 - - -
6370 GENERAL PRINTINGAND BINDING 6,743 5,985 11,900 10,000
6385 INSlJF2ANCE 6,400 18,100 19,000 20,000
6405 ELECTRICITY 87,772 112,928 70,000 115,000
6410 NATURAL GAS SERVICE 52,799 80,647 70,000 90,000
6426 SMALL EQUIPMENT REQAIR-LABOR 120 115 - -
6475 NNSCa1lWEOUS 694 6,405 15,000 3,000
6476 CONF~S AND SCJ-TOOLS 3,299 5,106 6,900 5,100
6477 LOCAL MEETING EXPE]VSES 115 156 1,000 500
647'9 DUES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS 396 485 800 1,000
6480 LICENSES, PERMTS AND TAXES 825 485 1,500 700
6487 VISA BANK q~ARGES 8,477 7,882 10,000 9,000
6492 PAYINGAIGB~ff FEES- BCNDS 403 403 400 400
6535 OTHER OONTRAGTl1AL SERVICES 8,310 18,683 32,300 23,500
6539 WASTE REMC-VAUSANITATION SERV 1,977 2,306 2,800 3,700
6669 MAINTEJVANCE CONTRP,w/TS 6,967 8,160 13,700 15,700
OTHER SERVICES AND G-IARGE~S 194,903 282,346 287,200 324,500
CAPITAL OUTLAY
6640 NIRVCHINERY/EQUIPMENT 50 - 23,200 4,400
6650 FURNITURE & FIXTURES - 3,724 - 27,000
6660 OFFICE FURNISHINGS & EQUIPMENT 4,796 4,993 9,300 4,800
ss7o OTHER EQUIPMENT - - zooo 44,000
6700 CCNSTRUCTICN PRQIECTS 26,596 3,178 - -
CAPITALOUTLAY 31,442 11,885 34,500 80,200
N6ZCFIA~DISE FOR RESALE
6856 NERq~iANDISE FOR RESALE 20,248 30,651 31,000 30,800
NET~NDISE FOR RESALE 20,248 30,651 31,000 30,800
RESEFZI/E FOR RENEWAL & REPLACEIvVENT - 120,800 121,600 124,500
TOTAL OONIIAUNTY (~1VTER
$1,016,692 $ 1,316,673
$ 1,461,400
$ 1,588,100
8.67%
DEBT SEf7VICE
PPoNgPAL $ 530,000 $ 550,000 $ 566,000
THEREBY 615,050 583,450 572,000
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE $1,145,050 $ 1,143,450 $ 1,138,000
fu~
$ 585,000
548,200
$ 1,133,200
Comm Ctr R&R schedule
Eagan Community Center
Capital Renewal/Replacement Funds
Item Description
BOILERS (3)
WATER HEATERS (4)
PLAYSPACE
CHILLER
ROOF
RIDER FLOOR SCRUBBER
KAIZEN RESTROOM CLEANER
HUMIDIFIERS (4)
CIRC MOTORS (4)
AHU SUPPLY/RETURN MOTORS (4)
BUFFER
SWEEPER
CARPET EXTRACTOR
PULL EXTRACTOR
WATER SOFTENER (2)
CARPET SPOTTER
BURNISHER
WALK IN COOLER
REACH IN REFER/FREEZER
REACH IN REFRIDGERATOR
REACH IN FREEZER
DISPLAY COOLER
WARMING OVENS (4)
DISHWASHER
BOOSTER HEATER
PLATE WARMERS /HOLDERS (7)
ICE MAKER
REFRIDGERATOR (2)
OVAL TABLES (45)
RECTANGULAR TABLES (90)
BISTRO TABLES (12)
BANQUET CHAIRS (450)
PLASTIC CHAIRS (175)
PODIUMS (3)
TENSABARRIERS (16)
ATRIUM/LONE OAK FURNITURE
POND FOUNTAIN
BANQUET ROOM AUDIO SYSTEM
AEROBIC STUDIO AUDIO SYSTEM
EXERCISE ROOM AUDIO SYSTEM
CARDIO FITNESS EQUIPMENT (30)
FREE/SELECTORIZED FIT. EQUIP.(14)
INDOOR CYCLE BIKES (15)
TEEN CENTER FURNITURE
PREFUNCTION /OAKS CARPET
REMAINING BUILDING CARPET
BUILDING VCT !VINYL FLOORING
ATRIUM
MEETING ROOM /TEEN
CENTER /LONE OAK
AED
MENU BOARD
BURNISHER - 2nd
Estimated
Useful Replacement Year Annual Year to
Life Cost Replaced Amortization Replace
35 $ 75,000 NEW 03 $ 2,143 2037
12 16,000 NEW 03 1,333 2014
8 150,000 NEW 03 18,750 2010
20 135,000 NEW 03 6,750 2022
20 250,000 NEW 03 12,500 2022
6 8,800 NEW 03 1,467 2008
6 2,800 NEW 03 467 2008
10 48,000 NEW 03 4,800 2012
8 4,800 NEW 03 600 2010
35 120,000 NEW 03 3,429 2037
7 1,500 NEW 03 214 2009
7 3,300 NEW 03 471 2009
7 5,500 NEW 03 786 2009
5 2,400 NEW 03 480 2009
20 9,000 NEW 03 450 2022
7 600 NEW 03 86 2009
7 1,500 NEW 03 214 2009
8 8,000 NEW 03 1,000 2010
7 4,850 NEW 03 693 2009
7 4,050 NEW 03 579 2009
7 4,050 NEW 03 579 2009
7 1,000 NEW 03 143 2009
7 11,000 NEW 03 1,571 2009
10 8,400 NEW 03 840 2012
7 1,020 NEW 03 146 2009
7 11,320 NEW 03 1,617 2009
7 2,600 NEW 03 371 2009
12 800 NEW 03 67 2014
15 15,750 NEW 03 1,050 2017
15 22,500 NEW 03 1,500 2017
15 3,600 NEW 03 240 2017
5 37,050 NEW 03 7,410 2007
5 3,850 NEW 03 770 2007
12 2,000 NEW 03 167 2014
12 2,300 NEW 03 192 2014
7 8,600 NEW 03 1,229 2009
6 7,000 NEW 03 1,167 2008
8 21,550 NEW 03 2,694 2010
8 10,580 NEW 03 1,323 2010
7 2,700 NEW 03 386 2009
7 116,040 NEW 03 16,577 2009
7 7,500 NEW 03 1,071 2009
6 8,625 NEW 03 1,438 2008/09
7 15,000 NEW 03 2,143 2009
5 40,000 NEW 03 8,000 2007
7 46,000 NEW 03 6,571 2009
5 19,500 NEW 03 3,900 2007
5 3,000 NEW 03 600 2007
6 16,500 NEW 03 2,750 2008
10 2,000 NEW 04 200 2013
15 2,000 NEW 04 133 2018
3 1,500 USED 04 500 2006
Total 724,554
9/8/2006
~~l
Eagan Community Center Marketing - 2006
Below is a summary of how various areas of the Community Center are being marketed in 2006.
Fitness Memberships and Classes:
• Letter sent to all members to send yearly guest passes, promote addition of new
equipment and programs
• Jan. promo commercial made for local cable
• Ad in special pull out section of the This Week newspaper for January membership
special "Active Rewards"
• Coupon in the Super Savers book for the Jan. promo
• Email sent to corporate contacts regarding Jan. promo
• Press releases on complimentary group ftness classes
90-Day Membership Special:
• Letter sent to a1190 day, participants from previous year
• Press release submitted
• Posted on electronic sign board
• Flyer emailed to corporate contacts
• Flyer posted throughout ECC and on local community boards
• Promo box and press release on City web page
The Blast Indoor Playground:
• Booth and staff attendance at Kids Expo at the Minneapolis Convention Center in
February.
• Sent follow up information to show attendees for birthday parties
• Letters to day care providers in six communities (600 letters sent)
• Flyer to all MN Parks and Recreation agencies (nearly 600) for summer group field trips
• Ad in GOl Directory - a special summer issue of MN Parent
• '/4 page ad in Simply MN -fall issue, 50,000 copies distributed in southern MN region
• Coupon on back of Cub receipts for Apple Valley store, running from June 16-Sept 4~'.
• Hotel rack card with coupon at surrounding hotels
• Anticipate sending. out direct mail to Inver Grove Heights/Mendota Heights communities
announcing new Non-resident punch card for Blast.
• TableBooth at Elementary school open houses.
Specialized Events:
• New reader board installed on Pilot Knob to alert people of current and upcoming events.
• Hand out flyers at 4a' of July parade advertising "After 5:00" special in The Blast.
• Letter sent to local youth groups about overnight party rentals.
~~
Banquet Room and Meeting Rooms:
• Ads placed in the Wedding Directory and Wedding Guide. Updated this year to include
listing as both a reception site and a ceremony site.
• Ad in Minnesota Meeting & Events Resource Guide.
• Ad in Eagan Telephone Directory.
• Listing in MSAE (MN Society of Associate Executives) alternative meeting resource
guide.
• Letters to school leaders and coaches who will be planning 2007 sports banquets.
• Staff visits to local business & meetings.
• Staff visits with local hotels to hand out ECC and City information on events and
recreational opportunities.
• Staff attendance at meeting planner forums at the U of M.
• Staff membership in the International Special Events Society.
• Revised banquet brochure.
• Anticipated fall wedding planning classes to be marketed to ECC brides.
• Increased involvement with the ECVB, including staff on the marketing committee.
• Staff attendance and sponsorship for government meeting planner association golf
tournament.
• Over 500 brochwes and informational packets mailed out to potential customers.
• Purchasing folders with the ECC logo to use in giving out ECC information.
• Begin updating AV equipment as a means to market to more meeting customers.
Regular On-Going Marketing:
• Press releases are done on a regular basis for all specialty programs
• Link on the Explore Minnesota web site as "attraction"
• Articles written for Experience Eagan
• Promotion in the Discover Brochure
• Promotion on City Web Page
• Promotions put on BECT
• All birthday party packets given out include Blast brochure
• Updates and revisions to the virtual tour
• Mazquee at city hall and new electronic reader board used to promote all programs,
memberships, fitness classes and rental opportunities
• Brochures placed on a mazketing table near the banquet room when any large group is
renting the Oaks
• Brochure available at other City facilities
/~
ECC
Marketing/Coordination with ECVB
Marketing Committee
Melissa Wind has begun attending marketing committee meetings. The next is scheduled for
August and they will continue every other month. It has been a very productive meeting to
answer a lot of questions and get a lot if insight into each other's needs. Melissa is currently in
the process of meeting with each hotel manager to deliver information and answer questions.
Each meeting has been about 30-45 minutes and has been very helpful to learn more about the
properties and potential rental opportunities for ECC or other facility spaces.
Golf Tournament
The ECC was represented at the SGMP golf outing this week. The idea and information was
shared by Roberta at the ECVB. It is a group of Government Meeting Planners and a great
opportunity that we wouldn't have known about without the ECVB involvement.
Communication
Although we don't have any regularly scheduled meetings (other than the marketing committee)
right now, the communication has been much more forthcoming and recipricol. We will be
working toward a more formalized meeting in the future.
Weddin /g Groups Hotels
The ECVB provides the ECC with a list of hotels to hand out to groups and brides. About 500
copies are given away to potential customers every year. That flyer also contains the ECVB
information. When asked about hotel rooms ECC staff will continue to direct people to the
ECVB. People are also directed to the ECVB when we don't have the space they need.
Advertising
The ECVB is looking at changing their advertising budget and publications for the next year.
ECC staff will remain a part of that process so that advertising can be better planned and not
compete. More partnering will occur in the planned advertising venues.
l~