Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) by griffinjay

Draft

City of Northfield Capital Improvement Plan for 2008 – 2012 Table of Contents Section

Page

Background & Introduction

City Facilities

City Streets & Related Infrastructure

City Enterprise Operations

Housing & Economic Development

Community Enhancements

Appendix A – Financing Capital Improvements

Appendix B – Financial Impact of the 2008 – 2012 CIP

Background:

Historically, the City’s use of a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) has had various periods of ebbs and flow. In the 1990’s the City did have a pavement management plan in place for the maintenance and reconstruction of City streets. In 2002, 2003 with the City facing significant financial burdens the city’s street program was abandoned. The replacement and maintenance of City facilities has had an equal history of sporadic planning. Rather than a strategic plan for significant maintenance projects or replacement, many facility projects were either deferred, or accomplished only in response to a high level of citizen complaint. While the process of rebuilding the city’s waste treatment plant is an example of a planning process that was successful, the 20-year process for replacing the outdoor pool or the current condition of the Safety Center and Ice Arena are examples of the need for a strategic plan that identifies needs, priorities, and financial implications. Over the past eighteen months, a lot of time and attention has been devoted to the development of a capital planning process and the capital improvement plan. This focus on capital planning has been deliberate. Many of the City’s buildings and facilities are in need of major renovation or replacement. Many of the City’s streets and other infrastructure systems are in need of repairs or replacement. Deferred maintenance and postponed projects have now resulted in many needs coming due at the same time. Recent years’ planning efforts have resulted in what many have described as “wish lists” – without prioritizing or regard to the community’s ability to pay.

What is a capital improvements plan? According to Wikpedia: “A Capital Improvement Plan, or CIP, is a long-range plan, usually four to six years, which identified capital projects and equipment purchases, provides a planning schedule and identifies options for financing the plan.” Wikpedia also identifies some of the benefits of a CIP: Allows for a systematic evaluation of all potential projects at the same time. The ability to stabilize debt and consolidate projects to reduce borrowing costs. Serve as a public relations and economic development tool. To aid this process, a subcommittee of the Council was created to specifically address this area. The subcommittee has met since early 2007 to develop a process and create a document that provides for the following: Addresses the City’s facilities and infrastructure needs – in terms of maintaining / replacing existing assets as well as providing for expansion as required; Balances the capital needs with the available resources (including debt capacity) that will provide an orderly and affordable approach to the acquisition and maintenance / replacement of capital assets; Tie-in to the City’s long-range financial planning process;

Draft

Tie-in to the City’s Council’s goals; Solicits broad community input as part of the annual review process; A CIP document that provides the community at large with sufficient information to understand the City’s needs in order to provide feedback. Part of the subcommittee’s work has been on developing a CIP Policy. The policy, still in draft form, is shown below: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) POLICIES

Definition of a CIP Project A capital improvement project is any project that improves or adds to the City’s infrastructure, has a substantial useful life of at least five years, and costs $25,000 or more, regardless of funding source. Examples of capital projects include the following: • • • • • • •

Construction of new or major renovation of existing buildings and structures Land acquisition or major land improvements Street reconstruction and resurfacing Sanitary sewer and storm drain construction and rehabilitation Water system construction and rehabilitation Major equipment acquisition and refurbishment Planning, feasibility studies, and design for potential capital projects

Certain other types of projects may also be included in the CIP as a means of detailing the expenditure of public funds for major programs and initiatives. While not a traditional “project” type, these programs and initiatives are appropriately placed in the CIP in its role as a major planning and policy document of the City. Examples include the following: • • • •

Housing programs Special Studies (Transportation, Greenway Corridor, Park Master Plan, etc.) Long range Economic Development Projects Others?? 3

Evaluation of CIP Projects The capital improvement program shall include those projects that will preserve and provide, in the most efficient manner, the infrastructure necessary to achieve the highest level of public services and quality of life possible within the available financial resources. Available financial resources include assessing the impact on residential and business property taxes and utility bills. Public input on proposed projects is a vital component on the evaluation process. Presentations will be made for purposes of soliciting public input on both the preliminary CIP and the final CIP. Only those projects that have gone through the CIP review process shall be included in the CIP document. No project, regardless of the funding source, shall be included in the CIP unless it meets an identified capital need of the City and is in conformance with this policy. Requests for projects from boards, commissions and individuals will be routed through the appropriate City department. Prioritizing Projects – Part I: Capital improvement projects shall be thoroughly evaluated and prioritized using the criteria set forth below. Priority A: • Critical health & safety issues; • Contractual or regulatory obligation (federal or state regulations or joint projects with the State or County); • High community support; • Direct link to Council goals or supports adopted plans; • Directly benefits the City’s economic base by increasing property values or expanding the tax base; • Prevents a substantial reduction in an existing standard of service; • Other? Priority B: • Health & safety issues (not critical); • Broad community support; • Indirect link to Council goals or adopted plans; • Cost-savings (by doing the project now, future cost-savings or prevents a larger-scale project in the future);

Draft

• • • •

Draft Significant to maintaining the City’s facilities or infrastructure; Indirectly benefits the City’s economic base; Helps prevent a reduction in an existing standard of service; Other?

Priority C: • Some community support; • No direct link to Council goals or adopted plans; • Of some importance to maintaining the City’s facilities or infrastructure; • No impact on City’s economic base or tax base. Priority D: • Little community support; • Insignificant to maintaining the City’s facilities or infrastructure. Prioritizing Projects – Part II: Capital improvement projects shall also be evaluated and prioritized according to their proposed financing using the criteria set forth below. Priority A: • Outside funding (federal / state grants or private contributions (50% or more); • No increase in property tax levy or utility rates; • Approved by voters (referendum); • Available funds on hand (and dedicated to this purpose); • Other? Priority B: • Some outside funding supplement (less than 50%); • Minimal impact on property tax levy or utility rates – less than 2%; • A large portion of the costs are assessable to benefiting properties; • Some funds on hand to finance a portion of the project; • Other? 5

Priority C: • Minimal outside funding; • Less than 20% assessable to benefiting properties; • Modest impact on debt levy or utility rates - >2%, but less than 5% • Minimal amount of funds on hand to help finance project. Priority D: • No outside funding; • No assessable costs; • Significant impact on debt levy or utility rates – more than 5%. CIP Schedule and Review Process The annual preparation of the five-year CIP shall precede the operating budget development to provide proper integration of capital expenditures and corresponding changes in operating costs into the following year’s budget. April: Review of CIP Policy, Debt Policy, forms and instructions for the preparation of the CIP th April 15 : Forms and instruction to departments May 15th: Project requests due to Finance May 15th – Preliminary review by internal committee May 30th: th June 15 June 30th: Preliminary review by Council Subcommittee on the CIP Late June – Early July: Public meeting / presentation to solicit public input on the preliminary proposed project list July – August Compilation of the proposed operating budget / integration of proposed projects On or before Sept. 15th: Adoption of the preliminary operating budget / tax levy October: Final review of the CIP by Council Subcommittee on the CIP November: Public meeting / presentation to solicit public input on the preliminary proposed project list

Draft

November: December – 1st meeting: December – 2nd meeting:

Draft

Final review of the CIP by the Mayor and Council Public Hearing on the operating budget and property tax levy Final approval of the operating budget, property tax levy and CIP

What is the current status of the 2008 – 2012 CIP? Because the entire process is still under review, the current CIP was approved with the expectation that it would receive further modification. 2008 is the test year for the initiation of the public input piece. The subcommittee chose to use the 2008 – 2012 CIP document draft as a starting point in the planning process for the next review and development cycle for the 2009 – 2013 CIP. In 2008 a modified process and timeline will be used, in 2009, the goal for the CIP process is to adhere to the schedule as set forth in the draft CIP policies.

The schedule for this year is to have the full Council review this document at the May work session and solicit public input at one of the regular Council meetings in June. The comments, concerns and suggestions gathered from the meeting will be incorporated into the next cycle – the CIP for 2009 – 2013. One of the Council’s highest priorities in establishing a process for the annual review and update of the CIP is providing for adequate public review and input – beyond a single Council meeting. It is anticipated that the review process will eventually include presentations to many of the City’s boards and commissions, civic organizations and even part of individual Councilor’s ward meetings.

What else is important to know? There is a direct link between the capital improvement plan and the goals / work plan the City Council adopted for 2008:

City Council Goal #4 – Protect and improve the City’s infrastructure networks to extend the City’s investments, provide a higher level of service to the community and to support orderly development and economic growth; City Council Goal #5 – Improvement the conditions of the city’s aging buildings and facilities and park infrastructure; City Council Goal #6 – Retain the character and identity of downtown Northfield. Furthermore, the capital improvement plan is one of the most significant components that will help achieve City Goal #2: Complete the design and implementation of the long-term (5-10 year) financial plan for the City.

8 This document is still very much a “work in progress.” There is a lot of background work and number crunching that will need to be completed to get even a summary plan assembled.

Draft

Content and Organization of the Capital Improvement Plan: The City’s CIP is a five-year plan with the projects included organized by broad categories:

City Facilities City Streets & Related Infrastructure City Enterprise Operations Housing & Economic Development Community Enhancements Individual projects are summarized for each category. Background information and related information (guiding master plans / studies) are provided to help the reader understand the context for the proposed projects.

CITY FACILITIES This category includes the following facilities: City Hall, Safety Center, Maintenance Facility (Public Works), Transit Garage and the Library. Facilities associated with the City’s enterprise operations (utilities and liquor operations) are not included in this category. Individual projects are listed under each facility. Background information: Over the last fifteen months, the City has contracted with Hay Dobbs to do a space needs analysis of City facilities. The “Municipal Facilities Space Needs Analysis” report was completed in March of last year. The report assessed the general condition of each major facility along with the City’s space needs. A study has also been completed for the expansion of the Library. A summary of the projects is shown below. Details on projects proposed for individual facilities are provided on the following pages. City Facilities:

2008

Projects Summary - Cost estimates City Hall Public Safety Center New Safety Center Improvements needed if new faciliies not constructed Transit Garage Maintenance Facility Library Other Citywide Energy Performance Improvements Totals Projects Summary - Proposed financing City Facilities Fund Transit Fund State Lease Financing G.O. Bonds Totals

2009

2010

1,149,691

35,000 82,000 101,663 191,758

600,000 272,000 55,000

1,896,712

2011 -

2012

25,000

5,400,000 900,000

8,100,000

168,000 -

927,000

6,300,000

8,125,000

168,000

85,000 16,400 65,600 879,712 850,000

327,000 600,000

6,300,000

25,000

168,000

8,100,000

1,896,712

927,000

6,300,000

8,125,000

336,600

Draft

168,000

Draft

Excerpt from “Municipal Facilities Space Needs Analysis” prepared by Hay Dobbs, March 2007: CITY HALL !

! # & ) + -

$$ $ % '!

" (

* ( + , + /

Building history note: This 1954 building was originally built as an elementary school. It became the City Hall in the late 1970’s and was intended to be a temporary facility at the time.

PROJECT: CITY HALL Status: New

Project Priority: Project Financing: Estimated Costs: Energy Improvements Renovation Boiler Replacement Proposed Financing:

2008 299,691 850,000

2009

Funding Source: Lease Financing G.O. Bonds City Facilities Fund

2008 299,691 850,000

2009

2010

2011

2012

25,000 2010

2011

2012

25,000

Project Descriptions: The renovation project has recently been updated to reflect a broader renovation of City Hall that will relocate Council Chambers as well as create new office space for the Public Services Department and make general improvements throughout the facility. The update is based upon recent discussions with the Council. At this time additional office space is needed for Engineering staff. Given the close working relationship with Community Development along with the creation of the Public Services Department, co-locating these operations provides the optimum opportunity to provide better customer service and enhance operating efficiency. With this relocation, additional office space would become available to better accommodate other departments’ operations and the delivery of services to the public. The energy improvements (Performance Contract with Johnson Controls, Inc.) project includes lighting upgrades, building automation system, window replacement, building envelope and roof repairs. Justification: Additional office space is needed right now – separate and apart from any discussion of a new City Hall. By renovating the existing storage area, the needed office space can be developed with available funds on hand. Those offices vacated as a result of this move will provide alternative office space for other operations that will aid workflow and improve service delivery / customer service. This includes relocating the City Clerk’s office and addressing the need to provide more space for records storage and more appropriate space for absentee voting.

Draft

Impact of Proposed Financing: The expanded renovation project will require the issuance of bonds. Costs associated with the Performance Contract are afforded through energy and maintenance cost savings. Impact on Operating Budget: There will be increased operating costs (heating / cooling) as a result of this renovation. Risk: If the renovation project is not approved, inefficiencies in delivering customer service will continue. Project requested by: Public Services and Administration Departments

Excerpt from “Municipal Facilities Space Needs Analysis” prepared by Hay Dobbs, March 2007: SAFETY CENTER (POLICE AND FIRE) Building is a concrete block, 3 story, sprinkled/nonsprinkled. The Police occupy most of the main and lower levels with entry spaces, administration, detention, training room, investigation, squad room, dispatch, lockers/showers, and storage. Fire operations occupy most of the apparatus bays, and day room, dormitory, storage and lockers/shower on the upper level. The building is landlocked on a busy intersection with one outlet for fire and public. The facilities are not ADA compliant and detention does not meet minimum DOC requirements. "

0 %

# &

$ " *

The Safety Center site is leased from MNDOT. The lease specifies that the only allowed use is its current use. Should the City construct a new Safety Center at a different site, this land / building may not be available for any other City use and will revert to the State.

Draft

PROJECT: SAFETY CENTER Status: New

Project Priority: Project Financing: Estimated Costs: New Safety Center Improvements to existing facility

2008

2009 600,000

35,000

272,000

2008

2009 600,000 272,000

2010 5,400,000

2011

2012

2010 5,400,000

2011

2012

Proposed Financing: Funding Source: G.O. Bonds City Facilities Fund

35,000

Project Descriptions: A renovation / expansion to the existing facility to meet public safety needs is not possible and a new facility will be needed at a new site. A new facility is estimated to cost $6 million. It is estimated at this time that land acquisition and design work will occur in 2009 with construction started the following year. The improvements to the existing facility for 2009 include a roof replacement, HVAC upgrade and new communications tower. Should a new facility be initiated next year, the improvements to the existing facility will not be made. Justification: Police and Fire staff, operations and equipment needs have outgrown the current facility. The present site does not provide safe access for emergency vehicles. Impact of Proposed Financing: G. O. Bonds would be issued to finance the new facility. These would be repaid through a debt levy amortized over twenty years. Impact on Operating Budget: There will be increased operating costs associated with a larger facility. Increased costs would be offset in part by energy efficient construction. Risk: If a new facility is not constructed, operations will continue to be constrained from inadequate space for staff and equipment. Building renovations would also be required to address maintenance issues on a facility of this age.

Project requested by: Public Services, Police and Fire Departments

The Transit Facility was built in 2002 and houses 1,060 square feet of office space for staff along with 5,871 square feet of heated garage space and 920 square feet of cold storage. The facility is at capacity. There are no immediate needs for expansion. % $ # &

$ " 3

+ + 2 $

4 56 ,

PROJECT: TRANSIT GARAGE Status: New

Project Priority: Project Financing: Estimated Costs: Door Replacement

2008 82,000

2009

2010

2011

2012

2008 65,600 16,400

2009

2010

2011

2012

Proposed Financing: Funding Source: State Transit Fund

Project Description: Remove eight (8) 10'(w) by 14'(h) garage doors and replace with four (4) 16'(w) x 14'(h) garage doors. This will require removal of existing doors and related garage door mechanisms, running additional steel supports for the wider doors, new rails, and heavier openers, rewiring and patching the steel around the openings.

Draft

Justification: The architect that designed the facility used doors that were undersized for the building’s use. The replacement of the doors will make the building more suitable for the storage of buses and related equipment and eliminate the maintenance costs associated with replacing mirrors and occasional bumpers that get hit as well as the more expensive repairs to garage doors that have gotten hit. The building is also used to store a wide variety of equipment used by the Library, Police and Public Works Departments. The wider doors would make this a much more functional facility for the City. If capital funds are available from the State, the City will only be required to provide 20% of the projects total cost. Sufficient capital grant funds were not available from the State in 2007 to complete the project. The City will apply for these funds again in 2008. If capital grant funds cannot be obtained from the State, the replacements will need to be accomplished entirely with City funds. Impact of Proposed Financing: Sufficient funds are available in the Transit Fund to finance the City’s share of the project assuming receipt of the state funds to finance the other 80% of project costs. Impact on Operating Budget: Savings in maintenance costs are expected as a result of the project. Risk: This replacement has become a higher priority since the City added a larger (Class 500) bus to the transit fleet and a larger Bookmobile bus. If the doors are not replaced, repair and maintenance costs will continue to increase related to replacing of mirrors, repair of bumpers, and repairs to garage doors. If State grant funds are awarded and not used in the award year, the funds will be lost. Project requested by: City Clerk

Location is limited with no expansion space for staff and storage in the current building. There is 2,640 square feet of office space, 5,600 square feet of repair and parts space, 16,800 square feet of heated garage space. % # & 56 ,

+ + 2 7

$ $ % * ( 8 * 8 6 , ! ,

PROJECT: MAINTENANCE FACILITY Status: New Project Priority: Project Financing: Estimated Costs: Energy Improvements Roof Replacement

2008 101,663

2009

2010

2008 101,663

2009

2011

2012 168,000

Proposed Financing: Funding Source: Lease Financing City Facilities Fund

2010

2011

2012 168,000

Project Description: The energy improvements include lighting improvements, building automation, building envelope and air handler replacement. The roof is 12 years old. The average life of EPDM roofs is 20 years. The roof is inspected and maintained annually and will reach the end of its useful life in 2015. Justification: Improved energy efficiency sufficient to offset the cost of the improvements. Both the lighting and heating systems are 12 years old and in need of replacement. Johnson Controls, Inc. identified these systems as part of their performance contract preliminary work.

Draft

Draft Impact of Proposed Financing: Energy savings will offset the cost of the energy improvements. The roof replacement will be financed through the City Facilities Fund. Impact on Operating Budget: Savings in maintenance and energy costs. Risk: If the roof is not replaced by the end of its useful life, maintenance costs will increase as will the chance of damage to the building due to a failing roof. Project requested by: Public Services Department

Excerpt from “Municipal Facilities Space Needs Analysis” prepared by Hay Dobbs, March 2007: LIBRARY A study by others, completed April of 2006, indicates the need to double the size. To expand on the existing site would greatly alter the design of the building. Enough parking cannot be accommodated on the current site. $ '!! # &

$ "$ * (

(

Draft

Draft PROJECT: LIBRARY Status: New

Project Priority: Project Financing: Estimated Costs: Building Upgrades Energy Improvements Division Street Wall Upgrade Library Building – Expansion

2008 50,000 141,758

2009 30,000 25,000

2010

2011

900,000

8,100,000

2010

2011

900,000

8,100,000

2012

Proposed Financing: Funding Source: City Facilities Fund Lease Financing G.O. Bonds

2008 25,000 141,758

2009 55,000

2012

Project Description: The building upgrade projects involve tuck-pointing the exterior and kitchen remodeling in 2008. The upgrades scheduled for 2009 include exterior painting and the replacement of the boilers and the addition of zone controlling in 2009. The energy improvements are part of the citywide project being done through Johnson Controls, Inc. Improvements include lighting upgrades, HVAC improvements as well as building automation system upgrades. The Division Street wall upgrade entails the installation of a (decorative) safety railing in the retaining wall opening, installation of a patio area and landscaping. A study by Robert H. Rohlf and Associates, library consultants, completed in April of 2006, indicates the need to more than double the size of the library building. The current building has 12,320 sq. ft. Over 30,000 sq. ft. is needed to meet the needs of the library’s growing service area population. Expanding on the current site would greatly alter the design of the building. The current site cannot accommodate adequate parking. Justification: The building upgrades are needed to maintain the building and make best use of existing space. The need for an expanded facility is driven by the growth in the Library’s service area since the 1985 addition. The use of the Library has also increased as has its programs and services.

Impact of Proposed Financing: The lease financing will be paid through energy and maintenance savings; the minor building upgrades will be funded through the City Facilities Fund; the Library expansion will require the issuance of bonds that will be paid through the City’s debt levy and result in higher property taxes. Impact on Operating Budget: The energy improvements and minor upgrades will have minimal impact on the operating budget; the expansion project will increase the operating budget due to having a larger facility. Risk: If the smaller upgrade projects are not done, maintenance costs will increase and possibly cause damage to the building. If the interior upgrade project is not done, inefficiencies will continue as well as the Library’s ability to provide services. Without an expanded facility in the future, services and programs will be limited to the current building and will not address the needs of the community and larger service area. Postponing a construction project will result in higher construction costs in the future. Project requested by: Library and Public Services Department

PROJECT: OTHER Citywide energy improvements – Included among the improvements associated with the Johnson Controls project are several citywide components. These include street lighting upgrades ($95,900) and security upgrades ($179,820) along with other minor projects. The total for these improvements ($336,600) is funded through the lease financing with payments offset by energy and maintenance cost savings.

Draft

CITY STREETS & RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE

This category includes street projects, sidewalks and trails and any related studies. There are also different categories of street projects – State roads, MSA (Municipal Street Aid) streets, County roads and local streets. Often the category of street will indicate the type of financing available as well as the entity that drives the project. State road projects are directed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The State will pay the majority of costs with the City required to provide a local share. MSA is State aid given to local governments for street costs. MSA is provided based upon the miles of “MSA” designated streets within the City and is broken down into two components – maintenance and construction. The City is allotted an amount of MSA to use each year. If the City is slow to use construction funds, the State can reduce funding. The City directs MSA street projects. County road projects are directed by the counties and require a local City share. The City directs local street projects and financing is generally a combination of special assessments (to the benefiting properties) and bonds. The City uses a Pavement Management Program to incorporate reconstruction, significant rehabilitation and ongoing maintenance to maximize the useful life of the City’s streets. A Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is used to assess and rate the quality of the City’s streets. The PCI is used as a tool within the Pavement Management Program to forecast the best expenditure of available City resources for street projects and maintenance. The program is devised to provide a systematic approach to planning street improvement projects that helps maintain consistency between CIP cycles, even when there are changes in staff or elected officials. Background information: Along with the implementation of the Pavement Management Program there are several key studies that influence future street and related infrastructure projects. Recently the Comprehensive Water Plan, Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan and Surface Water Management Plan were completed and adopted by the City Council. These plans not only provide an overall assessment of the current infrastructure condition, but also identify future projects that will need to be completed to maintain the City’s current service levels. In addition, these utility infrastructure studies, the City and surrounding community is involved with three significant transportation studies. These studies will also likely identify future projects to maintain and improve the City’s transportation system. A summary of those studies is shown below:

♦Northfield Transportation Plan♦

Project Definition A comprehensive Transportation Plan was developed for the community in 1998 addressing specific goals and objectives developed by the Planning Commission. In the past 9 years there have been substantial changes to the City and its planning areas. The City is also in the process of

24 updating its comprehensive plan and land development regulations to guide the City as it continues to grow while maintaining the character that the community has worked hard to preserve. The City is updating the Transportation Plan to assist in the update of these overall planning documents and to address new issues that have been brought up in the process such as neighborhood connectivity, non-motorized transportation, and pedestrian facilities. The plan will also coordinate with the other two transportation studies being undertaken; the MnDOT Access Management Study and Dakota County’s Northwest Northfield Highway Corridor Study. The selected consultant will: 1. Working with an advisory group, update the Plan’s goals and objectives. 2. Develop traffic forecasts dependant on the Urban Reserve Boundary and the Land Use Plan. 3. Develop recommendations for transportation as a whole based on the updated goals and objectives, public input, other transportation initiatives, and traffic forecasts.

♦Northwest Northfield Highway Corridor Study♦

Project Definition The purpose of this study is to investigate the existing and potential future alignment of CSAH 23/43 in association with the future north and west Northfield area growth. This study will also examine area arterials as they pertain to the growth and to CSAH 23/43. The study will also examine existing and potential future affects CSAH 23/43 and growth may have on the planned construction and paving of Dakota CR 96. The Dakota County 2025 Transportation Plan identifies the need for this study to address these concerns. This study will not identify specific roadway design, develop a construction timetable or identify funding sources or costs.

♦Highway #19 Access Management Study♦ Project Definition The goals of an access management study are to: • Improve overall safety of the transportation system • Reduce congestion on arterials • Reduce crashes • Improve traffic flow • Preserve existing system capacity • Improve pedestrian safety • Improve roadway aesthetics and property values • Preserve the value of adjacent business properties

Draft

Draft The summary of estimated project costs and proposed financing for the five-year period is shown below. More detailed information on individual projects follows. City of Northfield - 2008 - 2012 Capital Improvement Program Project Summary 2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Category Project Name / Description

City Streets & Related Infrastructure:

Special Studies Transportation Studies Cannon River Crossing Environmental Impact Statement Sidewalks & Trails Sidewalk / Trail Replacement & Maintenance Programs Mill Towns Trail Riverside Trail Connection Transit Hub / Trailhead Viking Terrace Bridge "Street Reconstruction Plan" Section State Roads Highway 246 (Division Street) (TH3 to CSAH 1) Highway 19 (North of Second Street) Highway 19 (Cooridor Study, Highway 3 to I-35) MSA Roads 4th Street Reconstruction (Washington to Nevada Streets) 8th Street Reconstruction (Water to Washington Street) North Avenue Full Depth Mill and Overlay Lockwood Drive Reconstruction Roosevelt Drive Full Depth Mill and Overlay Fremouw Avenue Full Depth Mill and Overlay Division Street (6th to 8th Streets) Full Depth Mill and Overlay Maple Street Full Depth Mill and Overlay Armstrong Road Reconstruction Poplar Street Reconstruction Spring Creek Road Reconstruction County Roads Woodley Street (CSAH 28), Prairie to Jefferson Parkway Woodley Street (CSAH 28), Division to Prairie Cedar, Lincoln Street to Thye Parkway

50,000

45,000

15,000 50,000

15,000

45,000 959,483 180,000 346,500

45,000

55,000

275,000

138,400 61,000

284,956

692,000 305,000 8,800 97,600 15,750 8,250

1,139,823 232,000

88,000 488,000 105,000 55,000 34,800 86,400

232,000 480,000 51,600 73,400

45,000

258,000 367,000 450,000

1,160,000 327,300

2,182,000

City of Northfield - 2008 - 2012 Capital Improvement Program Project Summary 2008

2009

2010

770,000 80,000

400,000

2011

2012

680,000 404,000 439,200

796,000

Category Project Name / Description Local Streets 5th Street Infrastruction Replacement & Water Street Parking / River Edge Improvement 1st Street Reconstruction (Linden & Lincoln to Dead End) Linden Street Reconstruction (St. Olaf to Greenvale) 2nd Street Reconstruction (Madison to Orchard, Lincoln to Dead End) 6th Street Reconstruction (Division to Memorial Field) Plum Street Reconstruction (St. Olaf to Greenvale) Annual Pavement Management / Street Reconstruction Program Other Street Projects Spring Street Realignment or Closure at Railroad

Totals City of Northfield - 2008 - 2012 Capital Improvement Program Financing Summary Internal Financing: General Fund Parks Fund City Facilities Fund Transportation Fund Transit Fund Master Development District Fund HRA Water Utility Fund Wastewater Utility Fund Storm Water Utility Fund Lease Financing (funded through operations) External Financing: Federal Grants / Aids State - MSA State / Other Grants County Grants / Aids Bonds: G.O. Improvement / Street Reconstruction / TIF Bonds G.O. Referendum or CIP Bonds Water Utility Revenue Bonds Sewer Utility Revenue Bonds Storm Water Utility Revenue Bonds Liquor Revenue Bonds Special Assessments Private Contributions Totals

1,631,960 154,000

109,200

546,000 136,000 80,800

100,000

3,851,299

3,703,423

3,565,000

2,747,500

4,098,000

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

45,000 131,314 50,000 680,000 111,180 80,620 22,680 -

45,000 70,000 -

45,000 65,000 -

45,000 15,000 -

45,000 -

222,500 186,650 29,200 -

87,000 104,600 -

133,090 149,490 43,920 -

294,800 271,200 126,600

611,735 484,356 380,000 -

534,000 599,618 127,600

259,000 550,000

341,600 180,015

799,000 1,200,000

1,039,980 100,800 113,634

1,135,488 753,367 -

2,067,000 387,400 -

1,034,045 805,340 -

1,136,122 -

3,851,299

3,703,423

3,565,000

2,747,500

4,098,000

Draft

225,278

Draft

Special Studies - The 2008 study is the remainder of the Transportation Plan with funding from the City’s Transportation Fund. The 2009 studies include $30,000 for the Safe Routes to School that is funded by a federal grant and $15,000 for a specialty transportation study (outgrowth of the Transportation Plan). The 2010 and 2011 studies are also specialty studies anticipated from the Transportation Plan. These will be funded out of the Transportation Fund. Sidewalks & Trails: Sidewalk / Trail Replacement & Maintenance Programs are ongoing annual activities to maintain or replace sidewalks and trails. Funding is provided from the City’s General Fund. The Mill Towns Trail project is a joint project with other entities that will provide recreational and transportation opportunities by tying into a trail system that will stretch from Mankato to Red Wing. The project provides for the construction of a trail bridge over the Cannon River and connection of the Mill Towns Trail from the north Sechlar Park entrance to Riverside Park. The City is providing engineering services to the project in the amount of $131,314 and will be funded from the City’s Park Fund. The remainder of the financing comes from federal ($334,535), state ($380,000) and other sources ($113,634). The Riverside Trail Connection will link Riverside Park to the intersection of 5th and Water Streets and complete the trail through the City. Funding for the $180,000 will come from the City’s Master Development District Fund. The Transit Hub / Trailhead project will entail the construction of a multi-modal hub in conjunction with the Mill Towns Trail project. The project includes a parking lot, access to trails, bike racks, restrooms and information kiosks near the intersection of Highways 19 and 3. The majority of funding comes from a federal grant ($277,200) and the balance from a local share. It is anticipated that the local share will be financed through g.o. bonds ($55,440). If the project is not done in 2008, federal funding will be lost. The Viking Terrace Bridge project will demolish the existing pedestrian bridge across the UP railroad line near the Dairy Queen and construct a new bridge approximately 300 feet south of the current location. Financing would be provided from g.o. bonds. State Roads – The three projects shown on the summary are not scheduled until sometime after 2012.

28 MSA Roads: 4th Street Reconstruction (Washington to Nevada Streets) – project will reconstruct the street and replace the sidewalks, sanitary sewer, water and storm sewer infrastructure as necessary. Funding is provided through special assessments ($248,000), MSA ($210,307), Water Fund ($87,250), Wastewater Fund ($51,250) and g.o. improvement bonds ($233,593). 8th Street Reconstruction (Water to Washington Streets) – project will reconstruct the street, add curb and gutter and replace the sanitary sewer, water and storm sewer infrastructure as necessary. Financing is made up of $92,693 in MSA funds and the remainder coming from g.o. improvement bonds ($273,307). North Avenue Full Depth Mill and Overlay (Summerfield to Zanmiller Drive) Zanmiller Drive from North Avenue to Meldahl Lane and Meldahl Lane from Zanmiller Drive to Lockwood Drive – project provides for the full depth mill and overlay to address pavement deterioration. Curb and gutter will be spot repaired as necessary. No utility infrastructure replacements are necessary at this time. Financing is comprised of MSA funds ($36,228) and g.o. improvement bonds ($60,572). Lockwood Drive Reconstruction (From Linden Street to Simione Court and Linden Street from Lincoln Parkway to Lockwood Drive) – Improvements will include the replacement of the watermain, sanitary sewer and storm sewer as well as the addition of a sidewalk along Lockwood Drive from Linden Street to John North Park. The sidewalk will provide a safe pedestrian link to Greenvale Elementary School. Financing sources are comprised of special assessments ($66,000), MSA ($200,902) and g.o. improvement bonds ($318,698). Roosevelt Drive Full Depth Mill and Overlay (From Jefferson Parkway to the south side of McKinley Drive) – project provides for the full depth mill and overlay to address pavement deterioration. Curb and gutter will be spot repaired as necessary. No utility infrastructure replacements are necessary at this time. Financing is provided through special assessments ($27,500), MSA ($43,227) and g.o. improvement bonds ($50,023). Fremouw Avenue Full Depth Mill and Overlay – project provides for the full depth mill and overlay to address pavement deterioration with spot repair of curb and gutter as needed. No utility infrastructure improvements are required at this time. Financing is provided through MSA ($22,643) and g.o. improvement bonds ($40,607).

Draft

Division Street Full Depth Mill and Overlay (6th to 8th Streets) - project provides for the full depth mill and overlay to address pavement deterioration with spot repair of curb and gutter as needed. No utility infrastructure improvements are required at this time. Financing is provided through MSA ($98,730), special assessments ($38,500) and g.o. improvement bonds ($129,570). Maple Street Full Depth Mill and Overlay / Reconstruction (From Meadow Drive to Ames Street and reconstruction of Maple Street from Ames to Woodley Streets) – project provides for the mill and overlay of the southern section of Maple Street and the full reconstruction of the northern section. Utility infrastructure replacements will be done with the segment that is reconstructed. MSA funds will provide $204,270 toward the project with the balance coming from special assessments ($143,000) and g.o. improvement bonds ($219,130). Armstrong Road Reconstruction (from Highway 19 to Lincoln Street with edge mill and overlay of Forest Avenue from Lincoln Street to Odd Fellows Lane and of 3rd Street from Odd Fellows Lane to the railroad tracks. The project will include the replacement of a number of faulty water valves. Financing includes MSA ($125,078) and g.o. improvement bonds ($184,522). Poplar Street Reconstruction (From Woodley to 8th Streets and 8th Street from Poplar to Linden Streets) – project will also include the replacement of the sidewalk and utility infrastructure. Financing is provided through MSA ($177,922), special assessments ($66,078), Water Fund ($75,600), Wastewater Fund ($72,000) and g.o. improvement bonds ($48,800). Spring Creek Road Construction (From Woodley Street to County Road 81) – project consists of the construction of an improved road (bituminous surface with curb and gutter) including sidewalk, water and sewer utilities and the replacements of deteriorated storm water facilities. The project has been postponed due to lack of support from Northfield Township. It is recommended that the project not occur until there is full support from the township or development can support the construction of the road. Costs shown for 2012 are for design only and would be financed through g.o. improvement bonds. Construction costs are estimated at $3,000,000. County Roads: Woodley Street (CSAH 28) Reconstruction (Prairie to Jefferson Parkway) – project upgrades Woodley Street from a 2-lane rural section roadway to urban roadway standards. In addition, the existing ditch drainage system will be replaced with new curb and gutter along both sides of the roadway, storm sewer and the construction of a storm water treatment pond and wetland mitigation area. The project will also include the addition / completion of the pedestrian sidewalk / pathway system along both sides of the roadway

30 section. Estimated costs are City costs only. Funding sources include federal funds ($504,000), MSA ($650,574) and special assessments ($73,367) with the remainder financed through g.o. bonds ($196,838). Woodley Street (CSAH 28) Reconstruction (Division to Prairie Streets) – project includes improvements to sanitary sewer, water and storm sewer and the addition of a sidewalk. Funding is provided through county funds ($677,600), Water Fund ($50,000), Wastewater Fund ($110,000) and g.o. improvement bonds ($554,400). Cedar, Lincoln Street to Thye Parkway Reconstruction – project provides for the reconstruction of the paved rural section of Cedar Avenue (CSAH 43/23) to an urban section including curb, gutter, sidewalk and trail. Funding will come from county funds ($1,380,015), MSA ($318,000) and g.o. improvement bonds ($811,285).

Local Streets: 5th Street Infrastructure Replacement & Water Street Parking / River Edge Improvement - project provides for the reconstruction of 5th Street between Washington and Water Streets and will include replacement of utility infrastructure. The Water Street parking lot will be reconstructed consistent with the streetscape framework plan. Financing comes from special assessments ($100,800), Water Fund ($22,680), Wastewater Fund ($15,120), Storm Sewer Fund ($22,680), Master Development District Fund ($500,000) with the balance from g.o. bonds. The Master Development District Fund will contribute toward the payment of the bonds ($879,960) with the remainder coming from a debt service levy (property taxes). 1st Street Reconstruction (Madison to Linden and from Lincoln Street to the western dead end) – project provides for the reconstruction of the street, sidewalk and the replacement of sanitary sewer, water and storm sewer infrastructure. Funding comes from special assessments ($432,000), Water Fund ($88,500), Wastewater Fund ($94,500) and g.o. improvement bonds ($309,000). Linden Street Reconstruction (From St. Olaf to Greenvale Avenues) – project will reconstruct the street and sidewalk. Utility infrastructure would also be replaced. Financing is provided through special assessments ($248,000), Water Fund ($45,250), Wastewater Fund ($33,250) and g.o. improvement bonds ($153,500).

Draft

2nd Street Reconstruction (Madison to Orchard, Lincoln to dead end) - project will reconstruct the street and sidewalk. Utility infrastructure would also be replaced. Financing is provided through special assessments ($45,900), Water Fund ($40,000), Wastewater Fund ($40,000), Storm Sewer Fund ($29,200) and g.o. improvement bonds ($500,100). 6th Street Reconstruction (From Division Street to Memorial Field) - project will reconstruct the street and sidewalk. Utility infrastructure would also be replaced. Financing is provided through special assessments ($288,000), Water Fund ($87,000), Wastewater Fund ($77,400) and g.o. improvement bonds ($363,600). Plum Street Reconstruction (St. Olaf to Greenvale Avenues) – project will reconstruct the street and sidewalk. Utility infrastructure would also be replaced. Financing is provided through special assessments ($248,000), Water Fund ($45,250), Wastewater Fund ($33,250) and g.o. improvement bonds ($158,300). Annual Pavement Management / Street Reconstruction Program – these are the as yet undetermined mill and overlay and/or reconstruction projects for years 2011 and 2012. Financing is estimated at 20% special assessments, 20% from the Water and Wastewater Funds, 10% from the Storm Water Fund with the remaining 50% in g.o. improvement bonds. Other Street Projects: Spring Street Realignment or Closure at Railroad (on 2nd Street) – The City has been notified that the Commissioner of Transportation will be issuing an order for closure or realignment of Spring Street at the railroad and 2nd Street due to safety concerns. Railroad crossings are not visible to southbound traffic, so a driver could easily end up on the tracks with a train approaching with no warning. A temporary barrier is being placed at this intersection within thirty days of the Commissioner’s Order. The cost estimate is very preliminary, as no design work has been done. Funding would likely come from g.o. improvement bonds.

CITY ENTERPRISE OPERATIONS: This category includes projects associated with the City’s enterprise operations. These include the four utility systems – water, wastewater, garbage and storm sewer and the liquor store. Recently the Comprehensive Water Plan, Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan and Surface Water Management Plan were completed and adopted by the City Council. These plans not only provide an overall assessment of the current infrastructure condition, but also identify future projects that will need to be completed to maintain the City’s current service levels. Funding of enterprise operations capital projects comes from user charges within each operation. Many smaller projects are included in the annual operating budgets of the operations. Larger projects – such as the construction of a new liquor store – would require the issuance of revenue bonds. General obligation revenue bonds are paid by each operation with no part being paid through property taxes. Liquor Operations: New Liquor Store $3,000,000 – Project consists of the acquisition of land and construction of a new store. Based upon the consultant’s report, the new facility would be approximately 10,000 square feet of which roughly 7,500 square feet would be devoted to the sales floor and cooler space. The new site would provide ample parking as well as a loading dock / delivery area. The current facility is severely limited in its efficiency and profitability because it is extremely undersized, with inadequate parking. Expansion at the existing site is not economically feasible nor would it address the parking issue. General obligation revenue bonds will be issued for the project and repaid from operating profits.

Draft

Utility Operations:

Draft

The projects included in this section are in addition to infrastructure replacements made as part of the street reconstruction / pavement management program. A summary of projects is shown below: ` Utility Operations Water SCADA Computer System Upgrade Well Rehabilitation Program Cold Storage Facility Convert Existing Cold Storage Area to Water Meter Room Valve Replacement Program St. Olaf Storage Tank - Maintenance

2008

2009

2010

25,000 20,000 100,000

20,000

2011

2012

20,000

20,000 60,000 145,000

Wastewater Babcock Park Interceptor Southern Cannon River Crossing Water Systems Replacement Computer & Telemetry Upgrade Energy Performance Improvements BAF Isolation Gate Replacement Heath Creek Interceptor

600,000 100,000 55,000 45,000 284,232

1,084,232 Stormwater East Dam Retaining Wall Maintenance Riverwalk Walls Tuck-Pointing Storm Water Program Development Storm Water Facility Improvements

358,000 30,000 30,000 418,000

100,000

20,000

400,000 420,000

250,000 100,000 350,000

75,000 75,000

500,000

30,000 25,000 75,000 130,000

30,000 75,000 105,000

Water: SCADA Computer System Upgrade – The SCADA system controls and monitors the entire water distribution system. Failure of the system would cause considerable problems in operations – in terms of both time and staff demands. The current system is at the end of its useful life. Technological advances in computer hardware and software also warrant replacement of the existing system at this time. The cost of the replacement of the system is part of the Water Fund’s 2008 operating budget. Well Rehabilitation Program - Regular well maintenance is required to keep the system at peak performance. The annual rehabilitation program involves pulling the well components, inspection and replacement as needed. The $20,000 annual cost is built into the Water Fund’s annual operating budget. Cold Storage Facility – Project entails the construction of a 6,000 square foot building at the south water tower site. Additional storage is needed for seasonal equipment, meters and other items. Funding comes from the Water Fund ($100,000). Conversion of Existing Cold Storage Area to Water Meter Room – Project converts the existing cold storage garage at 1101 College Street to year-round use. The area will be insulated and heated. The additional workspace is needed for the storage and operation of the radio read program. Funding comes from the Water Fund ($20,000). Valve Replacement Program – Project replaces or repairs thirty valves located on West 3rd Street and Woodland Trail area. The valves were found to be defective due to the manufacturer using below grade bolts in the construction of the valves. The bolts deteriorated in a short period of time after installation. This has caused leakage during valve operation. The bolts and / or the values require replacement. Funding comes from the Water Fund ($60,000). St. Olaf Storage Tank – Maintenance – Project provides for the inspection and spot painting of the two 1 million gallon storage tanks at St. Olaf College. Proper maintenance standards are required to maintain the facilities useful life. If proper maintenance is not followed, there is the risk of additional problems causing more expensive repairs and rehabilitation. If there were a failure of one or both storage tanks, water supply to the community could be compromised. Funding will come from the Water Fund ($400,000). Wastewater:

Draft

Babcock Park Interceptor - Project will extend the sanitary sewer line from the existing 24” line across the Cannon River to the existing pump station and eliminate the Arena pump station. The Arena pump station is in need of repair or replacement. This project will provide additional capacity to serve possible development areas to the west and could provide a second connection to the City to Dundas. The interceptor will also relieve capacity in the downtown sewers. This project was delayed from 2007 due to the completion of the Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan (CSSP). Funding is provided by the Wastewater Fund and may involve Sewer Revenue bonds if cash reserves are inadequate to provide internal financing ($600,000). Southern Cannon River Crossing – Project will extend the sanitary sewer line across the Cannon River near the existing pump station to serve a proposed business park along the Heath Creek Corridor and a second connection potential for the City of Dundas. If a second connection to Dundas is completed, it’s possible that Dundas would share in the cost of the project. Otherwise funding is provided from the Wastewater Fund and may involve Sewer Revenue bonds if cash reserves are inadequate to provide internal financing ($600,000). Water System Replacement - The existing water supply system was installed in 1982 and the building that houses the system was built in 1958. Chemical feed systems have been added to the works over the years and the building is too small to adequately house everything. This project will replace the existing building; provide a new water system, controls, variable speed pumps and chemical feed systems. Funding is provided from the Wastewater Fund ($55,000). Computer & Telemetry Upgrade - Project provides for the replacement of the SCADA computers (5) and portions of the telemetry system at the wastewater facility. The SCADA computers will be six years old in 2008. They operate 24/7 and are at or beyond their expected useful life. The telemetry system is a combination of the “Data Highway Plus” and Ethernet. They operate differently which causes data packet collisions that the system cannot handle. This causes the SCADA computers to lock up and creates other system problems. Funding is provided from the Wastewater Fund ($45,000). Energy Improvements – Project provides for a number of upgrades at the Wastewater Treatment Facility including lighting upgrades, replacement of the air handling units, building automation system and conversion of the heating plant to dual fuels that will allow a rate classification change from firm to interruptible natural gas. Funding of these improvements is part of the citywide lease financing for the Johnson Controls performance contract ($284,232). Lease payments in the Wastewater Fund are offset by energy and maintenance cost savings over a fifteen-year period.

36 BAF Isolation Gate Replacement - Project will replace the twenty five-foot gates that are used to isolate individual Biological Aerated Filter cells for maintenance. The gates are aluminum and are oxidizing as a result of the water. Because of the oxidation, the gates are becoming difficult to operate. Financing will be provided by the Wastewater Fund ($250,000). Heath Creek Interceptor – The sanitary sewer interceptor will be extended along the Heath Creek corridor to serve a proposed business park. This project will include over-sizing to support development along the corridor and has the potential to serve areas from the Cannon River to areas west of the hospital. Funding will come from the Wastewater Fund ($100,000). Stormwater: East Dam Retaining Wall Maintenance - Project will make repairs to the east retaining wall and sunken sidewalk above the retaining wall. The project will be completed in conjunction with Malt O’Meal’s dam repair project. Project also includes the addition of decorative fencing on the retaining wall and a ten by twenty foot overlook that will be financed through the Master Development District Fund ($45,000). The remainder of the financing will come from the Storm Water Fund ($313,000) and will require the issuance of revenue bonds due to the lack of reserves needed for internal financing. Riverwalk Walls Tuck-pointing - Program provides the ongoing maintenance of the Riverwalk walls along the Cannon River. Funding will come from the Storm Water Fund ($30,000 / year). Storm Water Program Development – This project involves the development of a regulatory program to meet the requirements of the City’s NPDES MS4 permit. Program development will include the drafting and adoption of three ordinances to meet the permitting requirements along with development of other regulatory mechanisms as recommended in the Surface Water Management Plan. This is necessary to meet the federal NPDES requirements. The new program will require additional staff time to implement and enforce. Funding is provided through the Storm Water Fund annual operating budget with the cost more clearly defined as the program is developed ($30,000 in 2008, $25,000 in 2009). Storm Water Facility Improvements – Project entails storm water facility improvements as recommended in the Surface Water Management Plan. Improvements will include upgrades or modifications to existing pond facilities, retrofitting older areas of town with retention ponds or infiltration practices, completion of a Low Impact Development (LID) project, etc. Funding is provided through the annual budget of the Storm Water Fund ($75,000 / year for years 2009 through 2012).

Draft

HOUSING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT:

Economic Development – The development of the 3rd business and industrial center is the number one priority that is outlined in the recently adopted Economic Development Plan. This business/industrial center will provide added land resources to enable existing businesses to expand and provide a location for new businesses seeking to locate in Northfield. This will result in an increase in commercial and industrial tax base plus employment opportunity. The project involves the development of a 3rd business/ industrial center which is planned to be located either west of the Municipal Hospital approximately ½ mile or south of Highway 19 and west of Industrial Boulevard. The proposed business/industrial center is expected to be approximately 160 acres at full build out. The EDA has been investigating the cost and market feasibility of such an undertaking and have estimated costs to be approximately $6,400,000 for the area west of Industrial Boulevard and $10,990,000 for the area west of the Municipal Hospital. For the purposes of this CIP the site west of the hospital is used and costs do not include any improvements that would be required by the developer. An estimated cost for the improvement of North Avenue is shown for a project in 2009. The total of $3,656,759 would be financed initially through special assessments ($731,352) and g.o. improvement bonds ($2,925,407). Ultimately, the full amount of the street costs could be recovered as the business park develops over the next twenty to thirty years. Extension of utility infrastructure is estimated to come about four years later. This is scheduled in the CIP for 2012. Utility revenue bonds (water, sewer and storm water) would be issued to cover the construction costs of $1,877,088, but as with the street improvements a majority, if not all, would be recovered through future special assessments as development occurs. Housing - The HRA continually examines opportunities to ensure adequate levels of affordable housing within the City. Specific projects in the past have included acquisition of individual lots for Habitat for Humanity or the Community Land Trust to construct homes for low- to moderate-income families and individuals. Over the past ten years, the HRA has developed two significant housing projects – Maple Hills and Presidential Commons. Maple Hills is a mixed-use neighborhood of 39 units available for homeownership. Presidential Commons is 70+ units of town-homes for affordable homeownership. Another proposal the HRA has received is to provide funding for developers to build affordable rental units in the City with the use of state tax credits. The 2008 project included in the CIP reflects the HRA’s recent purchase of land. Funding from HRA Fund reserves covered the cost.

COMMUNITY ENHANCEMENTS: This section includes those projects that represent enhancements to the community rather than those associated with the City’s core services / responsibilities. Included within this section are parks and recreation facilities, the Northfield Community Resource Center and downtown projects. Starting in early 2007, the Northfield Park and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) oversaw the preparation of a comprehensive parks, open space, and trail system plan for the city. The Northfield Parks, Open Space, and Trail System Plan was the result of extensive citizens involvement - formal and informal meetings and open houses, individual citizens and advocacy groups had direct access interviews with the consultant team and PRAB on numerous occasions. Through this process, a responsible balance between individual interests and the general public good has been achieved. A final draft of the plan was presented to the PRAB in December of 2007. The final review of the draft document by the PRAB and residents should be completed by the end of May 2008. The Council will then consider adoption of the plan in the summer of 2008. The Park, Open Space, and Trail System Plan provides an assessment of the current status of Northfield' s park system, a vision statement and policy plan for future park development, and a recommended implementation plan for the City to achieve that vision. The adoption of this document should be used as a map and tool for the future development of the Northfield Park, Open Space, and Trail Systems. Community Enhancements:

2008

NCRC -

Energy Performance Improvements Ice Arena Energy Performance Improvements Pool Operating Amenities - Equipment / Accessories Energy Performance Improvements Park Development & Park FacilitiesHeywood Park Development Old Memorial Field Park Development New Park Development Skate Park Lighting System Controls for Northfield Baseball and Softball Lighting for Sechler Park Softball Fields Contribution toward New Ice Arena / Recreation Center Downtown Enhancements & Streetscape Projects Wayfinding , Gateway Projects and Related Other Parking Ramp (requires study to determine need)

2009

2010

2011

2012

50,000

627,908 1,324,407 50,000 127,905 75,000 250,000 235,000 150,000 135,000 400,000 167,000

35,000

320,000

Draft

175,000 200,000

1,900,000

Draft NCRC – Energy upgrade project is part of the citywide project being performed by Johnson Controls, Inc. Upgrades to the NCRC include boiler replacement, building automation system, dehumidification air handling unit and solar heater for the pool in the Senior Center and lighting upgrades. The cost of the upgrades will be paid through the operating budget and come from energy and maintenance cost savings. Ice Arena - Energy upgrade project is part of the citywide project being performed by Johnson Controls, Inc. Upgrades to the Ice Arena include new ice making equipment, dehumidification system and a Low E ceiling as well as other minor projects. The majority of the cost for the upgrades will be paid through energy and maintenance cost savings. A capital contribution will also be required. At this time it is expected that the capital contribution will be split between the City Facilities Fund and higher ice rental rates. The total cost of the upgrade is being financing through lease financing ($1,324,407). Pool - Additional operating amenities (equipment & accessories) are included for 2008 with funding provided from the Parks Fund. Energy improvements are also scheduled for 2008 and include a solar pool heater. The total cost of the energy improvements is $127,905 and funded through the lease financing. Energy and maintenance expense savings will offset payback of the lease financing. Park Development and Park Facilities – Heywood Park Development – Project expands on the initial park development in 2005 in which trees, trails and turf improvements were made. The 2008 project includes the installation of playground equipment and a natural planting area. The playground equipment will be focused on 5 – 12 year olds. There is the potential for a matching grant for this location and perhaps a community build project. Funding is provided through the Parks Fund ($75,000). Old Memorial Field Park Development – Project expands the development of Old Memorial Field started with the new outdoor pool that celebrated its inaugural season in 2007. The site will allow for further development which could include playgrounds, trails, athletic fields / courts as well as passive park areas to provide a complete recreation area for users. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board have identified the completion of the Old Memorial Field Park as a priority as funding becomes available. Funding would come from the Parks Fund ($250,000).

40 New Park Development –Specific projects (years 2010 to 2012) will be developed from the Park System Master Plan. The Master Plan will help identify current and future park developments and additional amenities for the park system. Funding will come from the Parks Fund dependent upon available funding ($75,000 / year 2010 through 2012). Skate Park – Project constructs a Type 3 skateboard park. Council members, downtown business representatives and the local youth have identified this project as a needed amenity for youth activities. The Skateboard Coalition and PRAB went through a process to identify a location for the facility. The City Council recently selected Ames Park based upon the recommendation submitted. The estimated cost of $235,000 could be financed through contributions, grants and City funds. For presentation in the CIP, $150,000 is assumed to come from the Park Fund with the remainder of $85,000 from contributions / other sources. Lighting System Controls for Northfield Baseball and Softball – Project entails a centralized computer-operated lighting system. This would help control energy costs. Funding is proposed to come from the Park Fund ($150,000). Lighting for Sechlar Park Softball Fields – Project provides for the installation of a lighting system at the two existing softball fields. This would allow for additional use of the fields. The City currently has one lighted softball field at Babcock Park. Funding is presented as coming from the Park Fund; the project could possibly be shared with the Northfield Softball Association. Contribution toward New Ice Arena / Recreation Center – The City has a large demand for use of its recreational amenities. This demand includes larger groups (i.e., Community Services, YMCA, St. Olaf and Carleton Colleges, NHA). The City’s existing facilities are inadequate to handle the demand and beyond their useful lives. At this time, the City cannot afford to construct new facilities to meet all of the demands of the community and groups on its own. This CIP proposal provides for a $400,000 contribution toward a future project that would involve all of the groups in the community. The contribution would have to come from bonds that would be repaid through property taxes. Downtown Enhancements & Streetscape Projects – These projects are the result of the Downtown Streetscape Task Force. Funding is provided through the Master Development District Fund. The project includes the installation of new lighting, trees/landscaping, way finding and signage. Design Development and engineering work is schedule for 2008 with construction occurring in 2009 and 2010. Individual projects consist of the following: •

Lighting, Way-finding, Signage, trees

2008 Construction

Draft

• • • •

2nd Street & Division Highway 3 / 5th Street / Ames Park Pave Crosswalks 2nd and Division Pave Crosswalks 6th Division

Draft

2009 Design / 2010 Construction 2010 Design / 2011 Construction TBD – $25,000 TBD – $91,900

Parking Ramp - The need for a downtown parking facility has discussed for a number of years and more recently in relation to the Library expansion project. The need for such a structure would have to be researched. This project is more of a placeholder in the CIP with a tentative schedule of study / design in 2011 and construction in 2012. A portion of the funding for this project could come from the Master Development District Fund if funds are available. For presentation purposes, a total of $600,000 is proposed to come from the Master Development District Fund and the remainder from g.o. bonds ($1,500,000) that would be repaid through property taxes.

Appendix A

Methods of Financing Capital Improvements

There are a variety of methods used to finance capital improvements. These include the following – • • • •

Outside sources – intergovernmental revenues, e.g., MSA funds, County funds, etc.; Pay project costs from cash on hand - using current revenues or reserve funds; Issue debt to cover the project costs; New revenue sources – franchise fee and or local options sales tax.

Outside Sources

The most common source of outside funding is from other governments. The majority of intergovernmental funding included in the City’s CIP comes from the State in Municipal Street Aid. Federal funds will finance a third of the Mill Towns Trail project in 2008 and 80% of the Transit Hub project. Federal funds will also finance over half a million of the 2009 Woodley Street construction project in 2009 and finance a $30,000 Safe Routes to School study. County funding is typically limited to county road projects. In addition to intergovernmental revenues, some private donations help finance projects. This is the case with the Mill Towns Trail project and the Skate Park project. Cash on Hand

The City maintains several funds that are devoted to financing capital improvements and equipment / vehicles. These include the City Facilities Fund, the Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Fund and the Park Fund. The primary source of revenue for these funds is property taxes. Each year the City levies $84,000 for the City Facilities Fund, $310,000 for the Vehicles and Equipment Replacement Fund and $150,000 for the Park Fund. The Park Fund also receives park dedication fees from developers as well as donations from groups and individuals. Sometimes the donations are in-kind and include materials and / or labor. The utility enterprise funds (water, sewer and storm water) have (or should) cash reserves specifically for financing the replacement of utility infrastructure. The City has yet to clearly define what amounts are to be set aside for this purpose or adopted any specific

Draft

policy for how major projects are to be financed – proportion of cash on hand / debt financing. Further development of the long-range financial plan will direct this discussion. Reuse of funds also can occur. For example, if a general obligation bond matures (is paid off) and there are assets remaining in the fund, they could be used for any public purpose – including buying down the cost of new street projects. On occasion one-time revenues become available such as the sale of land. This occurred in 2007 when a small portion of Babcock Park was sold to aid the expansion of the veterinarian clinic. The City Council directed that the proceeds from the sale of the land be recorded to the Park Fund. Issuing Debt

The City may only issue types of debt that are authorized by City Charter or by State Statute. There are four basic types of bond issues available to cities: • • • •

General Obligation Bonds or Notes Revenue Bonds General Obligation Revenue Bonds Annual Appropriation Obligations

General Obligation Bonds or Notes: These pledge the full faith and unlimited taxing power of the City to pay debt service. The primary source of payment is from property taxes. The primary use of this type of debt is for projects that benefit the whole community. 100% of this debt counts against the City’s debt margin. Voter approval may be also required unless State Statute grants specific authority. Type of general obligation bonds / notes include: Equipment certificates are used to finance vehicles and equipment. Certificates are paid off in a short period of time – typically three to five years, but could be as long as ten years. This type of financing will be used to finance fire trucks; Improvement bonds are used to finance public improvement projects like street improvements. A minimum of 20% of the project costs must be assessed (special assessments) to the benefiting properties. They are often referred to as 429 bonds (reference to the authorizing chapter of State Statutes);

44 Street reconstruction bonds are used to finance street and related improvements. These bonds would be used for a street project where there are insufficient (or zero) special assessments. This is often the case with joint projects with the State or County. These bonds require the development of a “Street Reconstruction Plan” document, and a public hearing on the plan – after which there must be a unanimous approval of the plan by the Council. These types of bonds are subject to reverse referendum. Capital improvement bonds are used to finance City facilities such as city halls, public safety and public works buildings and libraries. These bonds require the development of a “Capital Improvement Plan” document and a public hearing on the plan after which the Council must approve the plan by a 3/5th’s majority. It is anticipated that the City will issue this type of debt to finance the renovation of City Hall and the construction of a new Safety Center. Referendum bonds can be used for a wide variety of public purposes. They are typically used for facilities that are not allowed under capital improvement bonds – such as recreation facilities. This type of financing was used for the Northfield Community Resource Center. It is anticipated that a referendum will be held on the Library expansion project. Lease Revenue bonds can be used for a variety of facilities projects. EDA Lease Revenue bonds were used to finance the aquatic facility. The Economic Development Authority issued the bonds – with lease payments from the City as the means of repayment for the bonds. The City levies property taxes for this purpose. Tax increment bonds are used to finance public projects where a minimum of 20% of the revenue used to pay off the bonds comes from tax increment revenues. Tax abatement bonds can also be used to finance public projects. Repayment of the debt comes from a property tax levy where the benefiting properties can generate sufficient property taxes to pay the principal portion of the bonds. A general debt levy pays the interest portion. The City does not have any tax abatement bond issues. Revenue Bonds and General obligation revenue bonds are typically issued to finance enterprise (water, sewer, storm water and liquor operations) projects. Repayment of the bonds is made through user charges rather than a property tax levy. However, general obligation revenue bonds do carry the pledge of property taxes. Revenue bonds (without the g.o. pledge) will typically have a slightly higher interest rate. Tax increment revenue bonds carry a pledge of tax increments. Taxable tax increment revenue bonds are used when the project involves a private activity (as opposed to a public purpose) – such as assisting a private developer with the purchase of land.

Draft

Annual appropriation obligations include capital leases and similar arrangements where the annual payments must be appropriated (approved and included in the budget) each year. This type of lease financing is being used to pay for the energy improvements currently being installed throughout the City’s facilities. New Revenue Sources

There are options for new revenue sources to pay for capital improvements and / or to offset the bonded debt property tax levy. These include a franchise fee (on your Xcel account) and a local option sales tax. Tax-exempt property owners would be subject to the franchise fee and would create a broader base of property owners and others who would contribute to the financing of capital improvements. The disadvantage of using a franchise fee for most residential property owners is that a franchise fee is not tax deductible. It is estimated that a franchise fee could generate an estimated $300,000 per year and would cost a typical residence about $2 per month. Larger users would pay more with their fee based upon their specific service / meter size. Many other cities in Minnesota who have implemented a franchise fee dedicate the revenue to street improvement programs. A local option sales tax would provide the only option to raise revenue from non-residents. A ½ cent local option sales tax would generate an estimated $500,000 per year. Special legislation would be required. The local option sales tax must be used for a “bricks and mortar” project – such as a Safety Center or Library. Local voters must also approve the local option sales tax. The disadvantage to a local option sales tax is the negative impact it may have on local businesses in their ability to compete with surrounding communities (that do not have the additional ½ cent sales tax).

Appendix B

Financial Impact of the 2008 – 2012 CIP

Existing Debt - Projected Tax Levy $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 $0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 1999E G.O. Improvement Bond

2002A G.O. Improvement Bond

2004A G.O. Improvement Bond

2006A EDA Lease Revenue Bonds

2007A G.O. Improvement Bonds

1998A NCRC (refunded by 2007 B)

Draft

Draft Thousands

Existing & New Debt - Projected Tax Levy $3,500 $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 existing debt 0 0

New Debt - facilities

New Debt - roads

New Debt - other

$3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500

$20

Thousands

Existing & New Debt - Projected Tax Levy with Franchise Fee and Local Options Sales Tax Offsets

New Debt - other New Debt - roads (with franchise fee offset) New Debt - facilities (with local option sales tax offset) exiting debt

Draft

Draft Projected debt levy portion of the City property taxes

$220,000 Residential Property

$500 $450 $400 $350 $300 $250 $200 $150 $100 $50 $-

2008

2009

2010

2011

Existing Debt - tax capacity-based New Debt - facilities - tax capacity-based New Debt - Roads

2012

Existing Debt - market value based New Debt - facilities - market value based New Debt - Community Enhancements

2013

Projected debt levy portion of the City property taxes

$220,000 Residential Property - with Franchise Fee / Sales Tax

$500 $450 $400 $350 $300 $250 $200 $150 $100 $50 $-

2008

2009

2010

Existing Debt - tax capacity-based New Debt - facilities - tax capacity-based New Debt - Roads

2011

2012

Existing Debt - market value based New Debt - facilities - market value based New Debt - Community Enhancements

Draft

2013

Draft Projected debt levy portion of the City property taxes $375,000 Residential Property

$800 $700 $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 $-

2008

2009

2010

Existing Debt - tax capacity-based New Debt - facilities - tax capacity-based New Debt - Roads

2011

2012

Existing Debt - market value based New Debt - facilities - market value based New Debt - Community Enhancements

2013

52 Projected debt levy portion of the City property taxes

$375,000 Residential Property - Franchise Fee / Sales Tax

$800 $700 $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 $-

2008

2009

2010

Existing Debt - tax capacity-based New Debt - facilities - tax capacity-based New Debt - Roads

2011

2012

Existing Debt - market value based New Debt - facilities - market value based New Debt - Community Enhancements

Draft

2013

Projected debt levy portion of the City property taxes

Draft

Projected debt levy portion of the City property taxes

Property Tax Impact on a $600,000 Commercial Property with reductions for implementation of a franchise fee and local option sales tax

$1,800 $1,600 $1,400 $1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 $400

Projected debt levy portion of the City property taxes

$200 $2008

2009

2010

Existing Debt - tax capacity-based New Debt - facilities - tax capacity-based New Debt - Roads

2011

2012

Existing Debt - market value based New Debt - facilities - market value based New Debt - Community Enhancements

Draft

2013