Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/30/1998 Council Minutes• • MINUTES MARCH 30, 1998 LINO LAKES CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MONDAY, March 30, 1998 6:00 p.m. Council Members Present: Mayor Sullivan, Council Members Bergeson, Dahl, Lyden, Neal Council Members Absent: None Staff Members Present : City Engineer, Dave Ahrens, Community Development Director, Brian Wessel; Finance Director, Mary Vaske; Assistant to the City Administrator, Dan Tesch; Fire Chief, Milo Bennett; Parks and Recreation Director, Rick DeGardner; Community Development Assistant, Mary Alice Divine; Clerk -Treasurer Marilyn Anderson. Former City Administrator, Randy Schumacher and Bond Consultant, Jerry Shannon from Springsted, Inc. were also present. Police Chief/Acting City Administrator, Dave Pecchia was absent. The purpose of the meeting was to continue the discussion that began on March 16, 1998 regarding the City's financial status in several areas including the Area and Unit Fund and the potential bonding for 1998 projects. There will be discussion on bonding, the City's bonding limits and the need to prioritize City projects. Milo gave a brief overview of what the City's response would be in case a tornado hit Lino Lakes as it did in St. Peter over the past weekend. He noted that Chief Pecchia is also Chief of Emergency Preparedness and has prepared a detailed emergency plan. Dan explained that he had a meeting with Harry Bruel of PDI regarding the process of hiring a City Administrator. He gave his input into the job description and noted that the process is continuing as planned. Dan also noted that the clerical/technical staff may be establishing a union. He will keep the Council updated on this matter. OVERVIEW OF PROJECTS AND FINANCIAL STATUS Brian, Mary Alice and Dave Ahrens reviewed information given at the meeting on March 16, 1998. Dave reviewed Schedule "A". Chris Lyden asked about the Surface Water Management Fund. Dave explained the purpose of this fund. He also noted that Marty Asleson was working on a grant to be used in reference to the "Green Way" in the Otter Lake Business Park. PAGE 1 MINUTES MARCH 30, 1998 Chris wanted to know why situations are not investigated thoroughly before the process is begun on improvement projects. For instance, the City was on the fast track for completion of the rerouted Otter Lake Road through the business park. Then Richard Schreier entered the picture and the entire process was stopped pending the outcome of Mr. Schreier's legal action.Then the City began the 21st Street improvement project and this project was stopped until the City of Centerville made a decision to be included or not be included in the project. Then the City began the Lake Drive utility extension project. Then it was determined that other utility companies have sensitive and expensive lines in the ground on the west side of Lake Drive proposed to be used for the sewer and water utility lines. Now the project is stopped pending investigation of placing the utility lines on the east side of the street. Chris asked why can't these questions be anticipated and resolved before the City invests a lot of time and money into the project. Kim asked that this question be dealt with at the end of the meeting. Shoreview Utility Connection Update - John Bergeson noted that a lot of dollars will be taken from the Area and Unit Charge Fund for some of the projects scheduled for construction in 1998 and 1999. He asked if there is some way to determine how many dollars will be coming into the fund because of construction in the next five (5) years. Dave said that some residents and businesses along Lake Drive have already indicated that they will hook up in the near future. He said he could make an educated estimate of the income from hookups. Andy asked if some hookup charges will be used to pay the City of Shoreview (Andy was referring to a situation where the City of Shoreview was not notified of connections to their utility system). Kim explained that City consultants are working on this matter and the information will be available about a week before the meeting scheduled with the City of Shoreview on April 27, 1998. SAC Refunds Update - The Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) fund was discussed. A map was displayed that showed where SAC was paid and the City got a refund of the SAC. There are approximately 880 properties involved. This matter will be discussed further at the end of this meeting. Village Development, Brian Wessel - Brian reviewed long term goals (Schedule "B"). Chris asked when all the land available in the Clearwater Business Park is sold, what is the potential number of businesses that can be located there. Brian explained that there is a "trigger" mechanism that will allow expansion of the business park into the R -BR district north of Main Street. He guessed that there could 15 more businesses located in the business park south of Main Street depending on the size of the businesses. Kim said that she was under the impression that TIF dollars could not be used for industrial development. Mary Alice explained that TIF dollars can be used in a redevelopment district. PAGE 2 • • • MINUTES MARCH 30, 1998 A map of the Village development plan was displayed. Brian reviewed the history of the land acquisition in the "Village" (Schedule "C"). He estimated that the land will be paid about two (2) years ahead of schedule. Brian reviewed the Civic Complex Budget (Schedule "D") and the funding schedule (Schedule "E"). Mary Vaske explained each fund balance and noted that the balances could be used for the civic complex. Kim noted that it appeared that the fund balances would be depleted if used for the civic complex. She asked what is the potential for rebuilding these funds. Mary explained that the Closed Bond Fund will always collect the undesignated balances from bond issues that are paid before all of the assessments are collected. The Apollo Drive Construction Fund would be eliminated if used for the civic complex. Chris noted that the dollars in the Area and Unit Fund and the Surface Water Management Fund need to be spent in a conservative manner. Mary explained that she does have the definition of each of these funds and the proposed use of these funds for the civic complex are legitimate uses. John noted that EDAAB had discussed creating a fund that would be recycled money rather than just spent with no return. It would be a fund built of dollars generated by development and used for development. Caroline noted that if the proposed expenditure from the Surface Water Management Fund is allowed, the balance of the fund would be very low. She asked if it was legal to take money from this fund to use for something else. Mary explained that she does have the definition of this fund and what it can be used for. Caroline noted that funds were designated to be used from the Sewer and Water Operation Fund. She asked what would happen if a new water tower was needed and there was not enough money in the fund to pay the cost. Mary explained. John noted that the purpose of this fund was to maintain the sewer and water infrastructure. YMCA - Brian presented the YMCA (Y) proposal. Chris asked if the City is committed to this project. Brian explained that he and Mary Alice were asked to explore the potential for this project. Mary Alice reviewed the material presented at the March 16th meeting (Schedule "F" and "G"). She noted the Y survey and said that this was a strong reason to continue talking with the Y. Chris said that it appears that the City will fund half the cost of the facility and asked if the City would be given half of the revenues? He also asked why the City couldn't just offer the land. He noted that the City does not have a park system and parents will do anything for their kids and if the Y is the only thing available, parents will go for it. Mary Alice presented the funding strategy for the Y. She noted that the Y is doing an in- house study to determine how much they could realize in fund raising. She reviewed reasons why the City should contribute to the building of the Y. Mary Alice also outlined the cost savings on membership for Lino Lakes residents (Schedule "H"). Chris said that PAGE 3 MINUTES MARCH 30, 1998 the building of the Village will be market driven. He asked why an offer was not being made to Lifetime Fitness or another such organization. Kim explained that the 20/20 Vision project indicated that residents wanted a family center in the town center area. Mary Alice explained if the City offers just land to the Y, they will go somewhere else. Chris said that he would rather the City tie up an athletic complex site before funding the Y. John commented that this Y will be the same as the Y next to Target Greatland on Lexington Avenue. He also noted that the Y will only come to Lino Lakes if the City gives them some assistance. Kim felt that it did not hurt to go ahead with the informational phase. Andy felt that the Y would only go to the community that offers them the most dollars. Brian said that this was not true, the Y is committed to Lino Lakes. Caroline asked Brian what the land was worth. Brian said that the City is getting the land free as he explained in the Village development plan. It was also noted that the site can only be used for public purposes and cannot be used for commercial development. Brian also noted that at this time the City has not committed to anything other than exploring the possibilities. Kim suggested that Rick and the Park Board sit down with the Council and determine what is more important, an athletic complex or the Y. Brian suggested that the Comp Plan Citizens Forum make this a topic. He said he hated to hear that this is an either/or situation. Kim felt that the Council would have to make a decision on this matter this year and wanted a "good feel" for what the community wanted. Brian felt that the best situation would be to tie up the land for the athletic complex with the idea of funding both the complex and the Y in 1999. Rick noted that the Park Board has voted to postpone the park referendum and will discuss the matter again in 1999. Funding Sources - Randy noted that the State Legislature is considering "tax class compression". He provided a handout for the Council indicating how the legislature proposes to reduce the tax rates (Schedule "I"). This means that although the total valuation of the City will increase, the City will collect less in property taxes. He also noted that if the City Council holds the levy to what it was last year, the City will have less dollars to use. This proposal is supported by the Governor. Randy also explained that levy limits will continue to at least the year 2002. Growth oriented cities may get some flexibility but this has not been worked out. He also noted that bond payments are exempt from levy limits. Randy also said that there has been substantial industrial development in Lino Lakes but with the help of TIF. Some of the TIF districts should be completed in three or four years, however they may continue as long as five or six years because of the compressed tax classes. Randy referred to the Highway 49/Highway 23 Improvement Project assessment appeal by property owner George Reiling. The City assessed the property $565,000.00. Mr. Reiling appealed the assessment. The Court has assigned a special master to place a value on the property. This matter may be resolved in a couple of weeks. The City should be looking at a decision that would allow the assessment to be reduced. If this is the case, the City will have to revisit this matter to determine how the balance will be funded. PAGE 4 MINUTES MARCH 30, 1998 • John felt tax compression was "scary" and the City could end up with no increase in • • revenue. Mary calculated the tax impact on a $150,000 home and noted that tax compression would have a major impact. Randy said that the Legislature should prepare examples on how this will impact municipalities. Mary handed out Schedule "M" and explained that the auditors have been in and the 1997 audit will be completed by the end of the week. The General Fund balance increased substantially so that the Council should consider how this increase should be designed to protect the funds. She suggested that the funds be designated by the end of April. Mary will get the department heads together and prepare a list of options for the Council to select. She noted that $70,000.00 of the funds have already been designated for new computers for the finance department. John said that it is his opinion that expenses should be paid out of the current year budget and did not like the idea of spending last years funds for something purchased this year. Jerry Shannon explained that the 1997 budget is out of balance. There is a concern that the state legislature will look to undesignated fund balances as additional revenue for the state. Therefore, it is important to designate these fund balances. He noted that once the 1997 books are closed the funds cannot be designated. Kim asked why there is such a big fund balance. Mary explained that some departments did not spend all of their budget. She noted that in many cases time ran out before the budget did. Kim asked Dave Pecchia to sit down with management staff and determine why this happened. Mary asked each Council Member how they would designate the fund balance. John said that if there is an opportunity, land for an athletic complex would be at the top of his list. Chris said he felt the same way, Kim said she would support the Y. Mary will bring a list of recommendations to the next work session. Mary presented Schedule "J", Area and Unit Fund. Projections through the year 2003. She felt that her estimates on this schedule were very conservative. Kim asked that Mary also prepare a TIF schedule for Council to review as well as fund balances for all other funds. She said that the Council should review this list at a future work session. Brian said that he would prepare a list of TIF projections including the terms of the districts. He felt that TIF is needed as an incentive in the market place. Chris said that he did not want to use TIF anymore. Mary referred to the first seven (7) projects listed on Schedule "A" and noted that these projects will be financed by cash. The balance of the 1998 projects will be funded by bonds. Jerry said it was important to note that two (2) different types of bonds will be used. He noted that the Council last October authorized a $3,000,000 Lease Revenue bond (Schedule "K") but it was delayed until the land exchange was finalized. He PAGE 5 MINUTES MARCH 30, 1998 presented a schedule indicating how that bond would have been issued. Jerry presented another schedule (Schedule "L") detailing a $1,790,000 General Obligation Improvement Bond. He noted that the City currently has net bonded indebtedness of $8,500,000.Most of this debt is supported by assessments.This leaves the City with a debt to market value of 1 1/2% which is low for a community the size of Lino Lakes. Traditionally, the City has bonded for projects over a short period of time and the bonds were paid back early. The current Moody's rating for Lino Lakes is BAA1 which is very good. Jerry also said that at this time the City is considering doubling its bonded debt. This is still conservative for a city the size of Lino Lakes. Chris asked if the City added six (6) million dollars of bonds for parks, can the City still maintain its current rating. Jerry said yes. The City is looking at over a 10 million dollar increase in its tax capacity rate at about 5%. This will result in a $112.00 a year increase for a property owner whose property is valued at $150,000.00. The net debt of the City would be 2% of its market value and the debt capacity would be 12 1/2 million dollars. Jerry also noted that bonds paid by a source other than taxes or bonds issued by another entity (EDA) do not count. Lease/revenue bonds (Centennial Fire Hall) would count. Bonding for the civic complex will count. He further noted that the City would be building tangible assets which will stimulate growth. The City already has a good track record of growth. Investors and rating agencies do look at this. The City must structure its debt so that it does not put an undo burden on the tax payers. Kim asked if the bond rating is reevaluated each year. Jerry said no, only when the City goes out for a bond sale. He also noted that if the community has not been out for bonds, Springsted does its own review. Kim asked how far can the City go out for bonding. Jerry explained it depends on how the City structures its debt. It was noted that the Charter limits the bonding authority of the City. Jerry explained that if a city has a general obligation debt, it has to be paid regardless of whether or not it is prohibited by the Charter. Chris said if the City tax capacity goes up 5% because of a bond, the reality is that it puts a great burden on tax payers. Kim also noted that Centennial School District is planning to go out for a bond. Chris felt that there is a policyquestion here. Mary said that the Council will have to decide if they want to increase taxes because of the proposed bonds. Jerry said the bonds could be "back loaded" so that the impact would not be so great. The Council must decide if they really want to build what is being proposed and will this construction really generate additional quality development. John said that there are four (4) projects on the list that the City has committed to which equals $3,000,000 to $4,000,000. There are two (2) projects left on the list, the Y and the park needs. Andy said he supported anything that makes the City better. Kim asked if the Council agreed that the Lakes Addition Street Improvement project and the civic complex are committed to? Are the issues to be discussed the Y and the parks referendum? Andy suggested putting off bonding for an athletic complex for one year. He PAGE 6 • MINUTES MARCH 30, 1998 noted that the senior citizens felt they should not have to pay high school taxes and park improvement taxes because they do not use these facilities. After further discussion Kim said it sounds like the Council would like to go for a million dollars for the park complex and maybe one and a half million for the Y. John asked if the City bonds for land acquisition how long does the City have to purchase the land. Jerry explained that the City would have to hold a referendum on this type of a bond. John asked if the City holds a referendum for approval of bonds for the purchase of land, how long does the City have to spend the money. Jerry said once the City has the authority the authority does not go away. However, once the City has issued bonds, the City has three (3) years to pay. Mary suggested that the City bond for the early childhood center and borrow money from the Area and Unit Fund for park land acquisition. This would relieve some pressure to acquire the land in the immediate future. Chris suggested that staff offer $500,000 and free land to the Y. Andy asked how many City ballfields are used by Lino Lakes children and adults. Rick explained that over 1,800 Lino Lakes kids have registered for summer youth programs. Andy suggested eliminating ballfields for softball tournaments. This would leave more ballfields for the kids. Mary noted that eliminating tournaments would have the affect of eliminating kids programs since the City charges fees for ballfield tournaments and this money is used to fund kids programs. Randy explained that the City entered into an agreement with the Centennial School District allowing the City to use ballfields at the Rice Lake Elementary School and the Centennial Middle School.The School District built the fields and the City maintains them. Kim noted that the citizens like the idea of both the Y (recreation center) and the athletic complex. She suggested that the City poll the citizens to see if they will support these facilities by raising their taxes "X" number of dollars. John said that there probably is not enough time to do another City survey. He felt the Council should make the decision about the Y on their own. Kim noted that residents were not polled on an athletic complex during the 20/20 Vision project but they were polled on a recreation center. Chris explained that he is in favor of the Lake Drive improvement project only if it benefits persons who need it. However, he did not support additional "roof tops". He asked if the Council could agree on this idea. John said that the Council should set goals for commercial and industrial development and challenged Brian and Mary Alice to help deliver these goals. He felt that this is not an either/or situation. In addition, the Council should set limits on residential growth. It was agreed that Lino Lakes needs to continue "full speed ahead" on commercial • development. PAGE 7 MINUTES MARCH 30, 1998 Randy suggested that since the Y has not been finalized, Brian and Mary Alice could be given $1,000,000 plus land and challenged to complete the deal. Andy also suggested that the Y give Lino Lakes residents free memberships Kim felt that the Lino Lakes citizens need to know that Lino Lakes will be paying for some of the Y development. She noted that the school districts will be using the facility and should be asked to help with the funding. Brian noted that Centennial Schools are interested in the project and Fairview will have a partnership in the facility. John asked if there could be a discussion with the Y about what the City would get for the $1,500,000. Council asked Brian and Mary Alice to go back to the Y and ask what they could do with $1,000,000 instead of $1,500,000. Brian said that this could be done. Don Dunn from the audience thanked Brian for securing a $220,000 Livable Communities Demonstration grant. He felt that it was premature to go to the citizens either by survey or referendum. He felt that this was an investment in the city profile that should generate a revenue stream that has not been counted on. He suggested that the City move ahead with its best effort to secure land for the athletic complex and without going back to the voters. Don suggested challenging Brian to look at all avenues first. Kim explained that this is not the first time this issue as come to the Council. Staff has done a complete analysis and the Parks Department has also done a lot of work on this. She suggested that maybe the Council has looked at this enough and it is time to do something. Brian said he would go back to the Y and see if they are receptive to $1,000,000 rather than $1,500,000. Kim asked Mary Vaske, Jerry, Rick and Randy to get together and prepare options for the Council to consider. John asked that the options be outlined on paper showing each area to be considered and how it would be funded. He suggested that another discussion should be does the City want to deplete the Area and Unit Fund for the early childhood center. Mary Alice updated the City Council on the Y discussions this far. She noted that if Brian goes to the YMCA and says the City will provide the land and $1,000,000 instead of the $1,500,000. They may say OK. However, it will take two (2) years instead of one to gather the entire funding for the project. The $1,500,000 offer would make sure that the Y is built now. Kim said that the Council has to think about how important the Y is to the entire development of the Village. She asked for clarification from John McClellan on how much the School District would be willing to fund. The next work session was set for 5:00 p.m. Wednesday, April 8, 1998. Kim asked that a SAC policy be prepared for Council action. John asked staff to prepare options for the PAGE 8 • • MINUTES MARCH 30, 1998 Council regarding funding of the civic center, Y and park land acquisition with funding options for each scenario. Mary said that she would let John know about each option before the next work session. Mary Alice will contact Mr. McClellan. Chris said that sometime in the near future, the Council should discuss how the Village and the Y affects residential development. The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. These minutes were considered, corrected and approved at a regular Council meeting held on April 27, 1998 Marilyn G. Anderson, Clerk -Treasurer Mayor PAGE 9 City of Lino Lakes Project Cost and Funding Year Project Name Total Cost 1998 Ware Road Lilac Lateral Lake Business Center Apollo Drivel!! 21st Avenue - Phase 1 Black Duck Lift Station Village Infrastructure Subtotal 1998 No Bonding Lake's Addition Otter Lake Road Realign Lake Trunk - Phase 1 Lilac Trunk Utilities Subtotal 1998 Bonding 1998 Total Protects 1999 1999 Lake Trunk - Phase 11 Otter Lake Service Road Total Protects 2000 21st Avenue - Phase II treet Reconstruction Elm Street Reconstruction Water Treatment Plant 2000 Total Projects 2001 Street Reconstruction 2001 Total Projects 2002 Street Reconstruction 2002 Total Projects 2003 Street Reconstruction 2003 Total Projects ‘A Current Funding Sources Area and Surface Unit Water Mngt TIF Anoka Total MSA County Centerville Assessments Bond Funding 1,682,850 b 478,317 264,007 b 264,007 125,000 d 125,000 356,428 a 805,105 c,f 289,075 248,000 b 248,000 505,732 b 73,853 505,732 1,130,480 280,130 76,298 158,015 158,015 1,682,650 264,007 125,000 356,428 605,105 248,000 505,732 3,788,922 1,404,399 73,853 505,732 1,130,480 280,130 158,015 234,313 0 3,786,922 2,335,071 c 374,710 1,110,289 c,e 75,000 244,347 2,441,961 c 895,795 c 389,711 6.783.116 1,960,361 790,942 2,441,961 506,084 2,335,071 1,110,289 2,441,961 895,795 Future Funding Sources Anoka County Taxes Assessments 240,428 292,002 329,060 67,057 137,317 0 Future City Cost (311,742) 27,995 204,060 67,057 (151,758) (248,000) 0 0 1,065,864 (412,388) 678,343 1,568,289 392,072 274,545 1,766,757 778,486 (374,710) (44,802) (675,204) (117,309) 839,421 244,347 0 0 0 0 0 5,699,348 6,783,116 678,343 1,588,289 3,211,860 (1,212,025) 10,570,038 2,243,820 318,200 505,732 1,130,480 280,130 158,015 234,313 5,699,348 10,570,038 678,343 1,568,289 4,277,724 (1,624,413), 836,479 c 836,479 387,955 c 1,224,434 387,955 836,479 0 0 0 0 0 387,955 838,479 387,955 0 1,224,434 629,272 314,636 314,636 629,272 761,140 240,000 521,140 761,140 862,500 217,500 45,000 600,000 862,500 750,000 750,000 750,000 3,002,912 1,207,500 45,000 0 600,000 0 314,636 314,636 521,140 3,002,912 2,635,960 1,350,000 1,285,960 2,635,960 2,835,960 1,350,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,285,960 2,835,960 1,898,100 812,000 1,286,100 1,898,100 1,898,100 612,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,286,100 1,898100 1,947,100 378,000 1,569,100 1,947,100 1,947,100_ 378,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,569,100 1,947,100 a Council has ordered feasibility report. b Council has approved plans and specs. c Council has ordered plans and specs. d Approved by P & Z e Draft agreement received, needs Council approval. f Council approved agreement. 3/26/98• 0 320,608 (515,871) 0 0 320,608 (515,871) 269,240 269,240 416,912 236,955 (107,273) (262,500) (750,000) O 416,912 506,195 (850,533) 1,028,788 257,192 (1,350,000) 0 1,028,768 257,192 (1,350,000) 1,028,880 257,220 (612,000) O 1,028,880 257,220 (612,000) 1,255,280 313,820 (378,000) O 1,255,280 313,820 (378,000) • • • • )wn By: WARE ROAD EXISTING B" DIP Dote, -A-07 ilk101 Orr Schelen Mayeron & Drawing Title WATERMAIN WARE ROAD Sheet no 00 as aa'oo 0 osaoaoamsigue � o Tint, 0000000 - _ � _ ■' a .D©an I 06g. 1:1,,,,, kwanuikomoirAW © MIEN Aeaov pm,,:v OCngu ! "ual ialt Q OmirsiV EEO°=n AID -gam � nor awn au m r' j; o Cu�CG �O i1� 1rl�s r�L1pCr.[Cr.10 O OD nbaGOLG:r G= [117TIMM oO Du-Gl7GppprE �i;: NM Qic��� rrr;rrr:= 0 0WI Osird. GJ�a� RICE LAKE • LILAC STREET UTILITY EXTENSIC LINO LAKES 1 12" REH BILITA11O1 CENTER z f f f PROJECT LOCATION Pelt Lok c.. f Sh erman Coke IhreSelraflr c5EH FILE NO. ALINOL9808.00 DATE: 02/06/98 APOLLO DRIVE PHASE THREE LINO LAKES, MN EXH C 1 0 ; Commercial,' / R PARKWAY CONSERVATION EASEMENT - ke- \Iztteus_ sk-mark- i ' •, . / 9Y 1 :sHANAU LAKE • Wackthx.k. fir. 1.44- 250 N 0 250 125 RESHANAU LAKE • I ' :Q / I • \co p ,D 6 -IR; • s • a I •• • • -- •,.. -, . - 1' • 1.1 ......... i \ , 1 , 1 iI in i , t I 1— \ 1:-.1.1.... (....) ; ; ! ; - 1.-:::::7-• 0 M ; 1 ----::: ce°1 ; BLACK DOCK !C , ! _i CIT, i t . i . . I CD ' i CD i I L.Li ' ' - _..._ ct 4-'581 FILE NO. LIN0L9716.00 DATE: 6/23/97 STREET IMPROVEMENTS LAKES ADDITION LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA { • 24TH AVENUE S 0 • 0 •I I I I I I 1 11 I I II 11 11 II II ® II 100' ROW T ELEV. TANK 0 N0. 2 0 13 (31 0 a J J 2 a OTToR LAKE RD. z f o z 221 L11 gl 01 C.R. 84) 0h- INTERSTATE HWY. • 35E • 1 CONSTRUCTION LABOR EDUCATION & TRAINir. 24-31-22-I4-0003 2 TAYLOR CORPORATION 24-31-22-14-0002 3 CYRIL H. LoCASSE JR. 24-31-22-41-0001 4 CYRIL H. LoCASSE JR. 24-31-22-44-0001 5 EOUITY RECOVERY CORP. 24-31-22-13-0002 6 RICHARD SCHREIER 24-31-22-13-0001 7 PAVL MILLER 24-31-22-42-0010 8 EUGENE ARNT 24-31-22-42-0009 9 EUGENE & BEATRICE ARNT 24-31-22-42-0006 10 PAUL MILLER 24-31-22-42-0004 11 ARNT FAMILY LTD PTNSP 24-31-22-42-0011 12 EUGENE ARNT 24-31-22-42-0007 Q WELL rip .1 13 PAUL MILLER 24-31-22-43-0008 Ir 1 DARREL KOTHE 24-31-22-43-0010 15 WAYNE SCANLAN 24-31-22-43-0009 16 RICHARD & CHERYL UARTINEK 24-31-22-43-0006 PROPOSED :NAP ST jLIR STAT104 OTTER LAKE ROAD REALIGNMENT PROPOSED IMPROVEMEN LINO LAKES, MINNESOT COMM. NO. 11085 V.885.79 21:S: WER ALTERNATE A REVISE!. 4111111rAirSral arab W itstairriEcrs t rummer's LAKE DRIVE TRUNK SANITARY SEWER LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA UN 970( 2 PROPOSED TRUNK UTILITY PROJECT RECOMMENDED WATERMAIN "LOOP" PROJECT LOCATION w/ "-_--1 T—' f?, e —.T- i .-... .1 ...- LINO LAKES t9-30 3e,07 i.A. frk rZ---1 1 s ! 7:71-; • / _.,'!-!, / ,.i 0.----_____--_— i.l.".i.'..- :..Z.. ; ....____. ..-.1.; / C • . / Y i -, - ± 1 ' i iTi -..7, ''. L K E• /1/4/ vi ill!1Mdtc. 451.tea4'Thwic kAils PROJECT LOCATION MA? LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA 1' Associates 1 Drawn By: P.L.J. Comm. No. 97124.00 Date: I 1/1 1/9 win 1 �g1•1 ..! »+.eeeeeoeea 1'8� ��w�w1111r.1s!■.. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ti „dizsai ErdCwOBERS . ARCHITECTS .PLAAwifitS w /ITCH G LAKE ADDENDUEM 0 FlT+� A -IINOI 9708.00 LAKE DRIVE TRUNK SYSTEM TRUNK SANITARY SEWER LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA DRP. _NO 1 1 1 1 24TH AVENUE 50-�2� 1 1 odk< cam. -gewrc.. Rn.d 100' ROW 1 INTERSTATE HWY. ELEV. - TANK 0 NO. 2 ALIGNMENT Bn (/) 0 J W a. OTTE R LAKE RD. (C.R. 84) J+ 0 100' RO' 0. ALIGNMENT "C" - 35E 1 1 1• OF < oirLOr F • PHELPS • • • OMi r 12 Otter • CITY OF LINO LAKES STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROGRAM 1996 BASK OATH - 1990 S LEGEND INTERSTATE TRUNK HIGHWAY U.S. TRUNK HIGHWAY STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY COUNTY ROAD CORPORATE LIMITS PUBLIC ROAD PRIVATE ROAD T _m_ RECOMMENDED STREET IMPROVEMENTS eeossiee PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 x ••�•� PHASE 4 PHASE 5 ��• LOWER PRIORITY IMPROVEMENTS Bald Eagle Lake EXHIBIT 2 !, R\\• e Rw.1c. Cc 1LOSS • t10S z 0 utter ill CITY. OF LINO LAKES STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROGRAM 1996 BASIC DATA - 1990 INTERSTATE TRUNK HIGHWA U.S. TRUNK HIGHWAY STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY COUNTY ROAD CORPORATE LIMITS PUBLIC ROAD PRIVATE ROAD RECOMMENDED STREET IMPROVEMENTS ssi••"■ PHASE 1 PHASE 2 o PHASE 3 PHASE 4 �....� PHASE 5 ....�..� LOWER PRIORITY IMPROVEMENTS Bold Eagle Loke EXHIBIT 2 R 1. !IC m rr sam r11:311111,7:1 gel mLEI { OO 9 Main Str one/TDD: 612-464-5562 • ota • 55014 2-4(14-4568 0 Peltier La wIto4DOTA M C I , eACAITKs Morshon • Loke George Watch Lake Peltier Loke RICO CROCK — CentervillH. Lake RCCMNAL P la oue P. gene arte W z a U U Rice Loke Reshonou Lake Words Lake Boldwin Lake Amelia Lake Bald Eogle Loke Ill CITY OF LINO LAKES STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROGRAM 1996 005C DATA — 1990 S LEGE INTERSTATE TRUNK HIGHWAY U.S. TRUNK HIGHWAY STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY COUNTY ROAD CORPORATE LIMITS PUBLIC ROAD PRIVATE ROAD m—m— RECOMMENDED STREET IMPROVEMENTS .e.e�.�■ PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 PHASE 5 LOWER PRIORITY IMPROVEMENTS EXHIBIT 2 e • • 0 • r ro N In Snag 9 z 0 0 Bald Eagle Lake CITY OF LINO LACES STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROGRAM 1996 0000 DATA - 1990 N INTERSTATE TRUNK HIGHWAY., U.S. TRUNK HIGHWAY STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY COUNTY ROAD CORPORATE LIMITS PUBLIC ROAD PRrvATE ROAD RECOMMENDED STREET IMPROVEMENTS .s�..� PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 PHASE 5 - LOWER PRIORITY IMPROVEMENTS EXHIBIT 2 1; R \� B . NC. 7Mef.« $euera, 700 MVO SOnI So. onde C �e� 0 C.7 Peltier La 7111 S0eL z_ emit/ ybESOTA CORRECTICMAL • Morshon Lake Morshon Loke George Watch Loke Peltier Loke RICE CREER - 01991 Cr LAKES REGIONAL PAR Centervill. Loke ,onoua p. CENTERVILL 9— Rice Loke 0 U U Baldwin Loke Amelia Loke n 0 cD Bold Eagle Loke 1// CITY. OF LINO LACES STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROGRAM 1996 BASK DATA - 1990 INTERSTATE TRUNK HIGHWAY U.S. TRUNK HIGHWAY STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY COUNTY ROAD CORPORATE LIMITS PUBLIC ROAD PRIVATE ROAD RECOMMENDED STREET IMPROVEMENTS PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 PHASE 5 LOWER PRIORITY IMPROVEMENTS EXHIBIT 2 • 50_,(k) PROJECT X705,640.00 2004 Industrial 1991 1. EMTECH (plus addition) (A) 300,000.00 2003 Industrial 2. ACCU-TOOL (Improvement) (A) 1993 218,700.00 2003 Industrial 1994 3.UDOR, U.S.A. (A) 928,050.00 2004 Industrial 4. NOL -TEC (A) 1995 5. BLUE HIndustrialERON (A) 1995 920,000.00 1998 Industrial 6. MAG -CON (A) 1995 730,250.00 2004 805,000.00 1999 Commercial 1996 7. MEDCENTERS (A) 1,390,000.00 2004 Industrial 8. LINO LAKES BUS. CENTER #1 (A) 1996 762,000.00 2004 Industrial 9. PROGRESSIVE ENGINEERING (A) 1996 5,100,000.00 2003 Industrial 1996 10. pDGRAPHICS (CC) 2003 Industrial 11. NORTHERN WHOLESALE (CC) 1996 2,960,000.00 Industrial 12. EAM (A) 1997 245,000,00 2004 2,200,000.00 2002 Industrial 13. LINO LAKES BIZ. CTR #2&3 (A) 1997 1,900,000.00 2002 Industrial 14. GNW MACHINE (CC) 1997 Commercial 15. FAIRVIEW CLINIC (V) 1997 900,000.00 2004 16. RICE INDUSTRIES (A) Industrial 1997 565,000.00 2004 1,000,000.00 2000 Commercial 17. LINO LAKES STATE BANK (V) 1997 Commercial 18. ASHLAND CONVIENCE CTR (TC) 1998 1,200,000.00 2000 Commercial 19. AMOCO/CULVERS (CC) 1998 2,000,000.00 2000 1,000,000,00 2000 Commercial 1998 20. LAKELAND NAT'L BANK (TC)00 2004 Industrial000 000, . 21. G.M. DEVELOPMENT SITE (A) 1998 5,Industrial 22. OFFICE/MANUFACTURING (CC) 1998 3,000,000.00 2004 Industrial 23. INCUBATOR BUILDING (LB) 1998 1,300,000.00 2004 Commercial 24. KKE SHOPPING CENTER (TC) 1998 4,000,000.00 2001 539,129,640.00 \` • Attachment C LINO LAKES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL PROJECTS YEAR PROJECT VALUE ON TAX ROLLS BUSINESS TYPE • TOTAL: (A -Apollo; CC -Clearwater Creek; LB -Lakes Business Park; TC -Town Center; V -Village) VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT/PHASE I -- LAND PHASE I: LAND PURCHASE DATE LAND COST PRICE PAID OWED TERM (acres) (Per SF) 3/24/97 Rehbein Land 13.84 1.75 $1,036,728.00 $543,140.00 $493,588.00 1/2002 11/24/97 Funkhouser Land 6.60 1.75 515,435.00 167,797.00 347,638.00 12/2002 4/15/98 County Land 14.72 .30 200,000.00 TOTAL: 35.16 1.15 $1,752,163.00 $710,937.00 $841,226.00 Estimated nonreimbursable "soft costs" $125 000.00 (interest, taxes, fees): PHASE I LAND SALE 7/9/97 Fairview Clinic 1.72 2.50 $189,575.00 11/24/97 Lino Lakes 217 800.00 State Bank 1.00 5.00 3/15/99 Professional Office/Retail 6.50 4.00 1,132,560.00 9/15/99 Old Police Station Site 4.00 2.00 350,000.00 TOTAL: 13.22 3.28 51,889,935.00 • • • • CIVIC COMPLEX (3/16/98) 1. CITY COUNCIL BUDGET APPROVAL (NOVEMBER 1997) CITY HALL: $3,000,000 POLICE DEPARTMENT: 3,000,000 EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER: 1,200,000 SITE PREPARATION: 500,000 TOTAL: $7,700,000 3. COST ESTIMATE A. "SOFT" COSTS 1. PROFESSIONAL FEES $670,000 (Planning, architectural/engineering/consultants) 2. FURNISHING/EQUIPMENT: 450,000 3. COMMUNICATIONS:TECHNOLOGY. 340.000 4. CONTINGENCY: 190,000 5. SAC/WAC: 50,000 SUBTOTAL: $1,700,000 B. CONSTRUCTION: $6,000,000 TOTAL: $7,700,000 City of Lino Lakes Civic Center Complex Funding Available Cash Area and Unit Fund Surface Water Management Fund Closed Bond Fund Apollo Drive Construction Industrial Park Fund Water Operating Sewer Operating Total Cash Contribution T.I.F. Proceeds Area and Unit Lfa for ECFE Bond Total Bonding Options Special Assessment Projects Lakes Addition Civic Complex YMCA Parks Referendum Total Possible Bonding Current Bonds Payable 12/31/97 35W Bridge Reconstruction 3/16/98 Feb. 28, 1998 Cash Balance 6,285,109 1,066,654 1,108,299 337,337 480,258 280,127 434,485 3,738,987 1,790,100 3,500,000 2,000,000 6,000,000 17,029,087 13,085,000 1,000,000 e 1/ Contribution 500,000 250,000 950,000 300,000 470,000 115,000 115,000 2,700,000 300,000 1,200,000 3,500,000 7,700,000 City Maximum Tax Bonds Less: Civic Complex Less: YMCA Less: Park Referendum Total Remaining 12,500,000 (3,500,000) (2,000,000) (6,000,000) 1,000,000 • • • 11 YMCA 1,112 LINO LAKES HOUSEHOLDS WOULD JOIN THE YMCA IF IT WERE BUILT PROJECT SCOPE LOCATION: CITY OWNED LAND IN THE VILLAGE SIZE: 45-50,000 SQUARE FEET COST: $5.5 MILLION (EXCLUDING LAND) • AQUATICS: TWO POOLS (WARM AND COLD) • GYMNASIUM • INDOOR TRACK • FITNESS/CARDIOVASCULAR • AEROBICS ROOM • MULTI -USE AREA • ADVENTURE AREA/TEEN CENTER • LOCKERS (MEN/WOMEN' S/FAMILY FUNDING STRATEGY FOR $5.5 MILLION YMCA FACILITY 1. YMCA OF GREATER ST. PAUL: $1,000,000 2. YMCA OF MINNEAPOLIS: 1,000,000 3. CITY OF LINO LAKES: 1,500,000 (plus land & infrastructure) 4. FUNDRAISING/PARTNERSHIPS: 2,000,000 TOTAL: $5,500,000 WHY SHOULD THE CITY CONTRIBUTE? • A YMCA HAS A POSITIVE IMPACT ON A COMMUNITY'S IDENTITY • A COMMUNITY CENTER COULD BE BUILT IN THE VILLAGE FOR $1.5 MILLION IN PUBLIC MONEY VERSUS $5.5 MILLION, AND IT COULD BE DONE WITHIN 2 YEARS • CITY OWNED COMMUNITY CENTERS LOSE MONEY AND NEED A CONTINUING INPUT OF PUBLIC DOLLARS FOR OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE • MEMBERSHIP DISCOUNTS TO ALL LINO LAKES RESIDENTS • WEEKLY COMMUNITY DAYS AND FAMILY NIGHTS FOR NONMEMBERS • YMCA OF THIS SIZE ATTRACTS 500-800 UNITS OF MEMBERSHIP PER DAY (FAMILIES/SINGLE MEMBERS) • ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE: A YMCA IS A MAJOR ATTRACTION FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPERS AND ESSENTIAL TO SUCCESS OF THE VILLAGE • OFFERS THE COMMUNITY AN OPPORTUNITY FOR COOPERATIVE PARTNERSHIPS WITH CENTENNIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT AND FAIRVIEW HOSPITALS • Dated Date First Interest Mature • Lino Lakes Economic Development Authority YMCA Project Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 1998 6/1/98 2/1/99 2/1 Levy Year (1) Maturity Date (2) Principal (3) Rates (4) Interest (5) Total Principal & Interest (6) 1997 2/1/1999 - 0.00% 55,840 55,840 1998 2/1/2000 45,000 4.60% 83,760 128,760 1999 2/1/2001 45,000 4.70% 81,690 126,690 2000 2/1/2002 50,000 4.80% 79,575 129,575 2001 2/1/2003 50,000 4.90% 77,175 127,175 2002 2/1/2004 55,000 5.00% 74,725 129,725 2003 2/1/2005 55,000 5.10% 71,975 126,975 2004 2/1/2006 60,000 5.20% 69,170 129,170 2005 2/1/2007 65,000 5.30% 66,050 131,050 2006 2/1/2008 65,000 5.40% 62,605 127,605 2007 2/1/2009 70,000 5.50% 59,095 129,095 2008 2/1/2010 70,000 5.60% 55,245 125,245 2009 2/1/2011 75,000 5.70% 51,325 126,325 2010 2/1/2012 80,000 5.75% 47,050 127,050 2011 2/1/2013 85,000 5.80% 42,450 127,450 2012 2/1/2014 90,000 5.85% 37,520 127,520 2013 2/1/2015 95,000 5.90% 32,255 127,255 2014 2/1/2016 100,000 5.95% 26,650 126,650 2015 2/1/2017 110,000 6.00% 20,700 130,700 2016 2/1/2018 115,000 6.00% 14,100 129,100 2017 2/1/2019 120,000 6.00% 7,200 127,200 Totals $ 1,500,000 $ 1,116,155 $ 2,616,155 Bond Statistics Composition of Issue Bond Years 19,350.00 Bond Issue $ 1,500,000 Annual Interest $ 1,116,155 Reserve Fund (131,050) Discount 22.500 Discount (22,500) Net Interest $ 1,138,655 Cost of Issuance (38,250) N.I.C. Rate 5.885% Capitalized Interest 0 T.I.C. Rate 5.966% Available Funds $ 1,308,200 Interest rates are estimates; changes may cause significant alterations of this schedule. The actual underwriter's discount bid may also vary. • • Prepared by Sprinpsted Inc.,3/30/98 Unoymca.xls COST/SAVINGS OF YMCA COSTS: $1.5 MILLION BOND: ± $32/YEAR PROPERTY TAX INCREASE ON A $150,000 HOME SAVINGS: ONE TIME NON-RESIDENT MEMBERSHIP FEE: $129 ONE TIME RESIDENT MEMBERSHIP FEE: $65 SAVINGS: $64 NON-RESIDENT FAMILY MEMBERSHIP: $696/YEAR LINO LAKES FAMILY MEMBERSHIP: $624/YEAR SAVINGS: $72/YEAR MEMBERSHIPS SAVINGS: PROPERTY TAX COST: NET SAVINGS: $136 $32 $104/YEAR AND YOU GET A HEALTH AND FITNESS CENTER TOO! • • MAR 20 '98 05:44PM LEAGUE OF MN CITIES O\LMC League of Minnesota ('`itNu Cities promoting exams. • • FR IDA YFAX A weekly legislative update from the League of Minnesota Cities Tax Bill: Governor Chimes In Late this afternoon, the governor sent a letter to the Tax Committee chairs in- dicating his demands for the final 1998 tax bill. Included in his demands are an immediate phase-in of reduced class rates for many properties, and extension of levy limits through taxes payable in 2000, a 1999 property tax rebate of $750 million and the creation of an income tax reduction account. The governor's letter indicated that he is disappointed in the property tax class rate compression included in both the House and Senate bills. He states, "Neither bill as passed con- tains the compression necessary for real reform, and this must be ad- dressed." He suggests that the con- ference committee adopt the Senate class rates, but phased -in the com- pression immediately for taxes pay- able in 1999. The only exceptions de- manded by the govemor are that home value greater than $75.000 not be reduced below 1.7 percent, that the first $75,000 of cabin value not ex- ceed 1.3 percent and that the balance of cabin property not exceed 2.3 per- cent. Under the Senate bill, home value in excess of $75.000 would be classi- fied at 1.6 percent, and cabins would be classified at 1.25 for the value un- der $75,000 and 2.2 percent for the value over $75,000. However, the Senate would not have implemented these lass rates until pay 2000. Relative to the Senate dass rates, the effect of the govemor's demands will be to provide less relief to high value homes, but to guarantee relief for cabin owners. Levy Limits The govemor also demands the exten- sion of levy limits. According to his letter, "Levy limits are necessary as we continue major structural changes to our state's property tax system. The Senate's position of repealing levy limits is not acceptable." The governor's position will certainly make the removal of levy limits more diffi- cult. Nothing in the governor's letter addresses the impacts of class rate compression on tax increment financ- ing inano-ing districts. This will likely be a last minute conference committee deci- sion. The letter to the tax chairs was not received until after the committee re- cessed for the weekend and there- fore, the committee did not have time to react to the govemor's demands. Obviously, the demand for a rebate will not be greeted warmly by the Sen- ate members who have no rebate in their tax bill. The reaction of the House members is more difficult to gauge. Other Conference Committee Developments Limited market value is also evolving into an important issue among confer- ees. Although the House bill included an aggressive limited market value provision, none of the House confer- ees voted for the amendment. Many of the conferees have expressed sig- nificant concerns about the precedent established by the limited market value P. 1 Vol. 3, No. 11 March 20, 1998 provision—some even equating it to the Califomia proposition 13 provision that has devastated that state. Senator Doug Johnson has emerged as the strongest supporter of the House lim- ited market value provision. The House limited market value is significantly more expansive than the current law provision: All property would be covered by valuation limits for a period of three years. For as- sessment year 1998, the increase in property market values would be lim- ited to the rate of growth in the con- sumer price index, which is currently less than 3 percent. For the following two years, property market value in- creases would be limited to the lesser of the consumer price index or 5 per- cent. In a memo to the conferees, a Senate staff member highlighted the problems that could occur under lim- ited market value and the difficulty of removing the provision in three years. The limit would shift taxes from high growth property to properties with low market value growth. The limit would be difficult to remove because the taxes on those properties that benefit from the limit could potentially in- crease dramatically. The governor did not express any particular position on the limited market value provision. However, the Department of Revenue has expressed concerns about moving away from a true market value basis for the property tax. For more information on city legislative issues, contaer any member of the League of Minnesota Cities Intergovernmental Relations team. City of Lino Lakes Area and Unit Fund Projections Cash Balance 02/28/98 Special Assessments Receivable 1992 Bond Payment 1996 Water Revenue Bond Projects Civic Center Contribution Flat Quarterly Fee Interest Eamed New Assessments Balance 12/31/98 1992 Bond Payment 1996 Water Revenue Bond Projects Fiat Quarterly Fee Interest Earned New Assessments Balance 12/31/99 1992 Bond Payment 1996 Water Revenue Bond Projects Flat Quarterly Fee Interest Eamed New Assessments Balance 12/31/00 1992 Bond Payment 1992 Water Revenue Bond Early Call) Projects Fiat Quarterly Fee Interest Eamed New Assessments Balance 12/31/01 1992 Bond Payment Projects Flat Quarterly Fee Interest Earned New Assessments Balance 12/31/02 1992 Bond Payment Projects Flat Quarterly Fee Interest Earned New Assessments Balance 12/31/03 <jC�IG� 0446' P4/1):40! 6,285,109 176Homes @ $3,323 565,000 13 acres Comm/Ind 100,000 2,700,000 665,000 (418,940) (254,758) Not Included: (2,243,820) Shoreview Assessments (500,000) Early Childhood Lease 120,000 250,000 665,000 6,602,591 (423,851) (314,752) (836,479) 84,000 250,000 680,000 6,041,509 (417,346) (303,228) (1,207,500) 88,000 250,000 695,000 5,146,435 (409,743) (1,350,000) 0 92,000 200,000 710,000 4,388,692 _1014)80) (612,000) 96,000 200,000 725,000 4,396,612 ) (378,000) 100,000 200,000 740,000 *3357-02 • Dated Date First Interest Mature 6/1198 2/1/99 2/1 • Lino Lakes Economic Development Authority Community Center Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 1997 I ; ,uL`;L- K • Levy Year (1) Maturity Date (2) Principal (3) Rates (4) Interest (5) Total Principal & Interest (6) Capitalized Interest (7) Net Levy Required (8) Existing Public Proj. Rev. Bonds (9) Projected Lease Payment Income (10) Total Net Requirement (11) Increase Due to This Issue (12) 1997 2/1/1999 - 0.00% 133,505 133,505 - 133,505 119,888 0 253,393 0 1998 2/1/2000 50,000 4.60% 200,258 250,258 250,258 116,588 0 366,846 250,258 1999 2/1/2001 55,000 4.70% 197,958 252,958 252,958 138,238 0 391,196 252,958 2000 2/1/2002 60,000 4.80% 195,373 255,373 255,373 133,175 0 388,548 255,373 2001 2/1/2003 70,000 4.90% 192,493 262,493 262,493 128,075 0 390,568 262,493 2002 2/1/2004 75,000 5.00% 189,063 264,063 264,063 122,900 0 386,963 264,063 2003 2/1/2005 75,000 5.10% 185,313 260,313 260,313 142,650 0 402,963 260,313 2004 2/1/2006 75,000 5.20% 181,488 256,488 256,488 135,650 0 392,138 256,488 2005 2/1/2007 80,000 5.30% 177,588 257,588 257,588 128,550 0 386,138 257,588 2006 2/1/2008 95,000 5.40% 173,348 268,348 268,348 121,450 0 389,798 268,348 2007 2/1/2009 105,000 5.50% 168,218 273,218 273,218 114,300 387,518 273,218 2008 2/1/2010 120,000 5.60% 162,443 282,443 282,443 107,150 389,593 282,443 2009 2/1/2011 230,000 5.70% 155,723 385,723 385,723 385,723 385,723 2010 2/1/2012 245,000 5.75% 142,613 387,613 387,613 387,613 387,613 2011 2/1/2013 260,000 5.80% 128,525 388,525 388,525 388,525 388,525 2012 2/1/2014 275,000 5.85% 113,445 388,445 388,445 388,445 388,445 2013 2/1/2015 290,000 5.90% 97,358 387,358 387,358 387,358 387,358 2014 2/1/2016 305,000 5.95% 80,248 385,248 385,248 385,248 385,248 2015 2/1/2017 325,000 6.00% 62,100 387,100 387,100 387,100 387,100 2016 2/1/2018 345,000 6.00% 42,600 387,600 387,600 387,600 387,600 2017 2/1/2019 365,000 6.00% 21,900 386,900 386,900 386,900 386,900 Totals $ 3,500,000 $ 3,001,553 $ 6,501,553 $ - _ $ 6,501,553 _ $ 1,508,614 $ - $ 8,010,167 $ 6,368,048 Bond Statistics Composition of Issue Bond Years 51,408.33 Bond Issue $ 3,500,000 Annual Interest $ 3,001,553 Reserve Fund (350,000) Discount 52.500 Discount (52,500) Net Interest $ 3,054,053 Cost of Issuance (42,250) N.I.C. Rate 5.941% Capitalized Interest 0 T.I.C. Rate 5.966% Available Funds $ 3,055,250 Interest rates are estimates; changes may cause significant alterations of this schedule. The actual underwriter's discount bid may also vary. Prepared by Sprinpsted Inc.,3/30/98 Lino. is ;ITY OF LINO LAKES MINNESOTA 51,790,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 1998 )ated: 4ature : First Interest: 6- 1-1998 2- 1 8- 1-1999 Year of Year of Levy Mat. Principal (1) (2) 1998 2000 1999 2001 2000 2002 2001 2003 2002 2004 2003 2005 2004 2006 2005 2007 2006 2008 2007 2009 2008 2010 2009 2011 2010 2012 2011 2013 2012 2014 TOTALS: (3) 50,000 100,000 100,000 105,000 110,000 110,000 115,000 120,000 125,000 130,000 135,000 140,000 145,000 150,000 155,000 1,790,000 Bond Years: 17,038.33 Avg. Maturity: 9.52 Avg. Annual Rate: 5.028% T.I.C. Rate: 5.163% Rates Interest (4) (5) 4.10% 144,985 4.20% 84,941 4.30% 80,741 4.40% 76,441 4.50% 71,821 4.60% 66,871 4.70% 61,811 4.80% 56,406 4.90% 50,646 5.00% 44,521 5.10% 38,021 5.20% 31,136 5.25% 23,856 5.30% 16,243 5.35% 8,293 1 Total Principal & Interest (6) 194,985 184,941 180,741 181,441 181,821 176,871 176,811 176,406 175,646 174,521 173,021 171,136 168,856 166,243 163,293 856,733 2,646,733 Annual Interest: Plus Discount: Net Interest: N.I.C. Rate: Prepared March 30, 1998 By SPRINGSTED Incorporated Projected 105% Assessment of Total Total Net Income Requirement (7) (8) (9) 204,734 194,188 189,778 190,513 190,912 185,715 185,652 185,226 184,428 183,247 181,672 179,693 177,299 174,555 171,458 2,779,070 856,733 22,375 879,108 5.160% 55,246 149,488 47,259 146,929 45,588 144,190 43,917 146,596 42,246 148,666 40,576 145,139 38,905 146,747 37,234 147,992 35,563 148,865 33,893 149,354 32,222 149,450 30,551 149,142 28,880 148,419 27,210 147,345 25,539 145,919 564,829 2,214,241 Interest rates are estimates; changes may cause significant alterations of this schedule. The actual underwriter's discount bid may also vary. • 'Pr) Following are the pre -audit budget vs. actuals for 1997 REVENUES Transfers Taxes Business Licenses Non -Business Licenses Intergovernmental Administrative Charges Cable TV Fines & Forfeits Interest on Investments Refunds & Reimbursements Other Total Revenues EXPENDITURES Mayor and Council Elections Administration Cable TV Finance Legal Consultants Community Development Engineering Planning & Zoning Board Government Buildings Charter Commission Police Fire Building Inspections Streets Solid Waste Abatement Fleet Parks Recreation Park Board Forestry Environmental Transfers Total Expenditures Additional Fund Balance • Budget Actual Difference (15,000.00) 2,658,110.00 20,270.00 528, 000.00 890,480.00 198,000.00 28,000.00 95, 000.00 60,000.00 42, 000.00 105,950.00 (15, 000.00) 2,658,485.80 22,454.24 544,107.09 926,632.20 190,891.15 17,926.40 99, 389.95 108,211.81 55,279.06 108,056.02 4,610,810.00 4,716,433.72 70,130.00 11,010.00 314,900.00 16,390.00 218,730.00 130,000.00 237,210.00 198,840.00 9,500.00 216,820.00 5,000.00 1, 326, 950.00 275, 370.00 156,900.00 561, 530.00 59, 770.00 170,680.00 324,070.00 116,290.00 7,580.00 92, 740.00 2,500.00 15, 000.00 4,537,910.00 66, 776.15 7,737.92 295,578.66 23,675.13 212,283.17 123,031.32 244,237.46 201,911.20 7,320.43 182,006.68 2,043.59 1, 317, 364.70 275,361.49 158,437.45 514,048.08 58,082.02 183,885.78 327, 302.26 108,813.74 3,146.88 84,180.24 2,796.90 15, 000.00 4,415,021.25 0.00 375.80 2,184.24 16,107.09 36,152.20 (7,108.85) (10,073.60) 4,389.95 48,211.81 13,279.06 2,106.02 105,623.72 (3,353.85) (3,272.08) (19,321.34) 7,285.13 (6,446.83) (6,968.68) 7,027.46 3,071.20 (2,179.57) (34,813.32) (2,956.41) (9,585.30) (8.51) 1,537.45 (47,481.92) (1,687.98) 13,205.78 3,232.26 (7,476.26) (4,433.12) (8,559.76) 296.90 0.00 (122,888.75) 228, 512.47