HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-22-2024 Agenda Packet
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
April 22, 2024 - 6:00 PM
Lakeville City Hall, Marion Conference Room
Members of the public can participate in person at the Lakeville City Hall, Marion Conference Room, 20195 Holyoke Avenue.
Members of the public may join the meeting via Teams Meeting, Meeting ID: 280 091 545 848 or by calling Toll Number 1-323-
433-2142; Conference ID: 678 432 13#. The mayor will allow for public comments and questions at the appropriate time.
The City Council is provided background information for agenda items in advance by staff and appointed commissions,
committees, and boards. Decisions are based on this information, as well as City policy, practices, input from constituents, and a
council member’s personal judgment.
1. Call to order, moment of silence and flag pledge
2. Citizen Comments
3. Discussion Items
6:05 p.m. a. Fire Station Study Michael Meyer
6:50 p.m. b. Franchise Fees Courtney Miller, Julie
Stahl
7:35 p.m. c. Local Preference in Contracting Allyn Kuennen
7:55 p.m. d. 2024A Debt Issuance Julie Stahl
8:10 p.m. e. 2023 4th Quarter Financial Report - General Fund Julie Stahl
4. Items for Future Discussion
5. Committee/ City Administrator Updates
6. Adjourn
Page 1 of 95
Date: 4/22/2024
Fire Station Study
Proposed Action
Staff is seeking direction regarding fire stations to serve our community.
Overview
At the October 2023 City Council work session, staff presented several options regarding the
renovation of the existing or the construction of new fire stations to prepare the department for
future staffing of stations. Staff has continued to work through the timing, funding and
construction of these improvements. Attached are Options D3 and D4. The renovations of FS4
were completed in the Spring 2024 to provide sleeping quarters for 24-hour staffing and the six
full-time firefighters hired in March. The temp renovation of FS1 is scheduled to be completed
in the Fall of 2024 to provide sleeping quarters for 24-hour staffing and the next six full-time
firefighters to be hired in early 2025.
Supporting Information
1. 4.22.24 Fire Station Recommendations
2. FD Options D3 and D4
3. Station Response Maps
4. FS2 Design
5. FS5 Design
6. LFD Study - Council Presentation 10-10-23
Financial Impact: $ Budgeted: No Source:
Envision Lakeville Community Values: Safety Throughout the Community
Report Completed by: Michael Meyer
Page 2 of 95
City of Lakeville
Memorandum
To: Mayor and City Council Members
Justin Miller, City Administrator
From: Mike Meyer, Fire Chief
Copy:Todd Sellner, Assistant Fire Chief
Allyn Kuennen, Assistant City Administrator
Date: April 22, 2024
Subject: Review Fire Station Options D3 and D4
At the October 2023 City Council work session staff presented several options regarding the
renovation of the existing or the construction of new fire stations to prepare the department for
future staffing of stations. Staff has continued to work through the timing, funding and
construction of these improvements. Attached are Options D3 and D4. The renovations of FS4
were completed in the Spring 2024 to provide sleeping quarters for 24-hour staffing and the six
full-time fire fighters hired in March. The temp renovation of FS1 is scheduled to be completed
in the Fall of 2024 to provide sleeping quarters for 24-hour staffing and the next six full-time fire
fighters to be hired in early 2025.
Option D3 Proposes the Following:
•Purchase new land at the Dodd and Cedar Avenue area and construct a new “Station 5”
(see attached design) that would serve the areas previously served by FS 2 and 4. This
would provide the ability for FS 2 and 4 to be eliminated.
•At this point the city could pause the full renovation of FS 3 and 1, while staff determines
the full effect of the new “Station 5” on the future needs of FS 3 and 1.
•If full renovations of FS 3 and 1 is needed, they could be completed in 2027 and 2028.
•The cost of Option D3 which includes renovation FS 1, 3 and 5 is estimated to be between
$60.4 and $68.3 million.
Option D3 Pros:
•Flexible Space: not limited by land/footprint, providing room to account for future needs.
•Central location: positioned at Cedar and Dodd, offering easy access to north and
southbound Cedar, and potentially east and westbound 179th Street.
•Long-Term Planning: designed to meet the long-term needs with ample space for
ambulance/Allina and future growth.
•The potential of Allina moving their base from Apple Valley to Lakeville.
•Potential Revenue: sale of FS 2 land could offset some costs.
Page 3 of 95
•Allows for the reduction of fire stations from three to four and associated equipment.
Option D3 Cons
•Land Purchase Required: acquisition of land is necessary.
•Higher Construction Costs: construction of a larger station may incur higher costs.
•Longer response times to eastern border of city limits.
•Would need to sell or find a reuse for Stations 2 and 4.
Option D4 Proposes the Following:
•Demo and reconstruct FS2 beginning in 2025 with completion in 2026 (see attached
design).
•Fully renovate and expand FS3 in 2027. (If this option is considered, do we do both FS2
and FS3 as one construction project)
•Fully renovate and expand FS1 in 2028.
•With the full renovation of FS 1, 2 and 3 would allow the expansion of their service areas
to eliminate the need for FS4 by 2029. (FS4 would be used as a temp location while FS 1,
2 and 3, are renovated).
•The cost of Option D4 is estimated to be between $51.6 and $59.6 million.
Option D4 Pros:
•Cost Effective: rebuilding on the current property limits costs.
•Community Proximity: station remains in a residential area, ensuring proximity to POC
firefighters.
•Allows for the reduction of fire stations from three to four and associated equipment.
•Maintains desired response times to eastern border of city limits.
•Eliminates the need for temp renovation at FS3.
•Allows for the reduction of fire stations from three to four and associated equipment.
Option D4 Cons:
•Accessibility Challenges: current roundabout configuration limits access, particularly for
west bound traffic.
•Operational Disruption: maintaining operational capacity during construction would be
very challenging. Would need to consider housing equipment temporarily out of the
CMF/FS4.
•Limited Future Growth: space constraints may limit the station’s ability to meet the future
community needs.
•Space Limitation: Limited space for ambulance/Allina.
•Cost Implications: remodeling Station 1 to accommodate administrative offices will
increase costs.
Exhibits:
Page 4 of 95
•Option D3
•Option D4
•Response maps (FS 1, 3, & 5 (D3) and FS 1, 2, & 3 (D4))
•FS2 Design
•FS5 Design
•October 2023 CC Work Session Presentation
Page 5 of 95
Page 6 of 95
Page 7 of 95
Response Maps
Station 5 (Cedar & 179th)
Page 8 of 95
Response Maps
Station 2 (Dodd & Flagstaff)
Page 9 of 95
Page 10 of 95
Page 11 of 95
Page 12 of 95
Page 13 of 95
October 23, 2023
Lakeville Fire
Department
Facility Study
Quinn Hutson, AIA – Principal
B rooke Jacobson, AIA – Principal
Page 14 of 95
Who We Are
•F ull service, mid-sized firm
•50+ years of experience
•Leaders in public safety design
•Strong design; quality work
throughout
•Engaged representation
Page 15 of 95
CNH ARCHITECTS
Information Gathering
›Staff interviews
›Site & Building review
›City ordinance
›Fire station design standards
Page 16 of 95
CNH ARCHITECTS
Station 1 - Holyoke
1985Built
1995, 2012Remodeled
38 yearsAge
11,760 SFTotal Area
4 apparatus bays (2 back-in)Apparatus
Page 17 of 95
CNH ARCHITECTS
Station 2 - Dodd
1976Built
1985, 1991, 2003Remodeled
47 yearsAge
5,760 SFTotal Area
4 apparatus bays (3 back-in)Apparatus
Page 18 of 95
CNH ARCHITECTS
Station 3 - Kenrick
1988Built
N/ARemodeled
35 yearsAge
5,341 SFTotal Area
2 apparatus bays (1 back-in)Apparatus
Page 19 of 95
CNH ARCHITECTS
Station 4
2002Built
2012Remodeled
21 yearsAge
12,632 SFTotal Area
3 apparatus bays (1 back-in)Apparatus
Page 20 of 95
Stations 1 - 4
Existing
Conditions
Page 21 of 95
Firefighter Health
Does Not Meet Need For:
›Carcinogen separation
›Vehicle exhaust extraction
Page 22 of 95
Firefighter Health
Does Not Meet Need For:
›Adequate decontamination
›Separate turnout gear space
Page 23 of 95
Firefighter Health
Does Not Meet Need For:
›Mental health support
›Indoor / outdoor fitness space
Page 24 of 95
Firefighter Health
Does Not Meet Need For:
›Lack of dorms
›Controlled lighting transitions
Page 25 of 95
Safety
Does Not Meet Need For:
›Drive-through bays
›Separation of apparatus & public traffic
Page 26 of 95
Safety
Does Not Meet Need For:
›Station design Best Practices
›Current building codes
›Sufficient clearance around apparatus
Page 27 of 95
Training
Does Not Meet Need For:
›Ground ladder training/evolutions
›Hose advancement/stair evolutions
Page 28 of 95
Training
Does Not Meet Need For:
›Confined space rescue
›Search + rescue maze
Page 29 of 95
Training
Does Not Meet Need For:
›High rise training
›Wall/floor breach
Page 30 of 95
Training
Does Not Meet Need For:
›Advanced technical rescue (rope rescue/rappelling)
›Alarm panel/sprinkler system
Page 31 of 95
Shortage of Space
›Does not allow for all current & future needs
›No flexibility incorporated for current uses
Page 32 of 95
Shortage of Space
›Site & building not functionally organized
›Inefficient operational flow
Page 33 of 95
Sustainability
Does not meet current LEED strategies
›Low-efficiency mechanical systems
›Lighting not fully LED or controlled
›Poor thermal exterior envelope
›No stormwater treatment
›Poor indoor air quality
CNH ARCHITECTS
High energy use
Page 34 of 95
Station
Options
Page 35 of 95
Station 1 – Option 1
Apparatus/Training
Decontamination
Support
Public
Station Offices
Administration
Residence
Common
Circulation
Existing Building Footprint
First Floor Second Floor
Page 36 of 95
Station 1 – Option 2
Proposed Site Layout
CNH Architects
Station 1 – Option 1
Firefighter
Parking
Parking
County Rd 50
H
o
l
y
o
k
e
A
v
e
Page 37 of 95
Station 1 – Option 2
First Floor
S econd Floor
Apparatus/Training
Decontamination
Support
Public
Station Offices
Administration
Residence
Common
Circulation
Page 38 of 95
Station 1 – Option 2
Proposed Site Layout
CNH Architects
Station 1 – Option 2
CNH Architects
Firefighter
Parking
Parking
County Rd 50
H
o
l
y
o
k
e
A
v
e
Page 39 of 95
Station 2
First Floor Second Floor
Apparatus/Training
Decontamination
Support
Public
Station Offices
Administration
Residence
Common
Circulation
Page 40 of 95
Station 1 – Option 2
Proposed Site Layout
CNH Architects
Station 2
CNH ArchitectsCNH Architects
Parking
F
l
a
g
s
t
a
f
f
A
v
e
W
Page 41 of 95
Station 3 – Option 1
First Floor Second Floor
Apparatus/Training
Decontamination
Support
Public
Station Offices
Administration
Residence
Common
Circulation
Existing Building Footprint
Page 42 of 95
Station 1 – Option 2
Proposed Site Layout
CNH Architects
Station 3 – Option 1
CNH ArchitectsCNH ArchitectsCNH Architects
Parking
Firefighter
Parking
Page 43 of 95
Station 3 – Option 2
First Floor Second Floor
Apparatus/Training
Decontamination
Support
Public
Station Offices
Administration
Residence
Common
Circulation
Page 44 of 95
Station 1 – Option 2
Proposed Site Layout
CNH Architects
Station 3 – Option 2
CNH ArchitectsCNH ArchitectsCNH ArchitectsCNH Architects
Parking
Firefighter
Parking
Page 45 of 95
Station 4
First Floor Second Floor
Apparatus/Training
Decontamination
Support
Public
Station Offices
Administration
Residence
Common
Circulation
Existing Building Footprint
Page 46 of 95
Station 1 – Option 2
Proposed Site Layout
CNH Architects
Station 4
CNH ArchitectsCNH ArchitectsCNH ArchitectsCNH ArchitectsCNH Architects
185 th St W
Firefighter
Parking
Page 47 of 95
Combined Station
First Floor
S econd Floor
Apparatus/Training
Decontamination
Support
Public
Station Offices
Administration
Residence
Common
Circulation
Page 48 of 95
Station 1 – Option 2
Proposed Site Layout
CNH Architects
Combined Station
CNH ArchitectsCNH ArchitectsCNH ArchitectsCNH ArchitectsCNH ArchitectsCNH Architects
Parking
Firefighter
Parking
Page 49 of 95
Cost Estimates – Short-Term
Station 2
$84,100Hard Cost
$2,523Occupied Facility /
Phasing Factor
$86,623Sub-total
$8,662Contingency (10%)
$95,285Total Cost
Prices shown above are as of August 1, 2023. Constru ction cost inflation should be added to the
project hard costs above from the date listed to projected project construction midpoint at a rate of
5% per year.
Station 1
$45,440Hard Cost
$1,363Occupied Facility /
Phasing Factor
$46,803Sub-total
$4,680Contingency (10%)
$51,484Total Cost
Page 50 of 95
Cost Estimates – Short-Term
Station 4
$75,975Hard Cost
$2,279Occupied Facility /
Phasing Factor
$78,254Sub-total
$7,825Contingency (10%)
$86,080Total Cost
Prices shown above are as of August 1, 2023. Constru ction cost inflation should be added to the
project hard costs above from the date listed to projected project construction midpoint at a rate of
5% per year.
Station 3
$75,600Hard Cost
$2,268Occupied Facility /
Phasing Factor
$77,868Sub-total
$7,787Contingency (10%)
$85,655Total Cost
Page 51 of 95
Station 1 – Option 2
$16,533,740Hard Cost
$992,024Phasing Factor
$2,357,106Soft Cost
$19,882,870Sub-total
$1,988,287Contingency (10%)
$21,871,157Total Cost
Cost Estimates
Station 1 - Option 1
$11,622,700Hard Cost
$697,362Phasing Factor
$2,043,515Soft Cost
$14,363,577Sub-total
$1,436,358Contingency (10%)
$15,799,935Total Cost
Prices shown above are as of August 1, 2023. Constru ction cost inflation should be added to the
project hard costs above from the date listed to projected project construction midpoint at a rate of
5% per year.Page 52 of 95
Cost Estimates
Station 2
$14,350,530Hard Cost
$861,032Phasing Factor
$2,257,025Soft Cost
$17,468,587Sub-total
$1,746,859Contingency (10%)
$19,215,445Total Cost
Prices shown above are as of August 1, 2023. Constru ction cost inflation should be added to the
project hard costs above from the date listed to projected project construction midpoint at a rate of
5% per year.Page 53 of 95
Station 3 – Option 2
$13,856,498Hard Cost
$0Phasing Factor
$2,299,665Soft Cost
$16,156,163Sub-total
$1,615,616Contingency (10%)
$17,771,780Total Cost
Cost Estimates
Station 3 – Option 1
$12,042,400Hard Cost
$481,696Phasing Factor
$2,024,808Soft Cost
$14,548,904Sub-total
$1,454,890Contingency (10%)
$16,003,794Total Cost
Prices shown above are as of August 1, 2023. Constru ction cost inflation should be added to the
project hard costs above from the date listed to projected project construction midpoint at a rate of
5% per year.Page 54 of 95
Combined Station
$19,995,110Hard Cost
$0Phasing Factor
$2,910,007Soft Cost
$22,905,117Sub-total
$2,290,512Contingency (10%)
$25,195,629Total Cost
Cost Estimates
Station 4
$10,968,950Hard Cost
$658,137Phasing Factor
$2,203,047Soft Cost
$13,830,134Sub-total
$1,383,013Contingency (10%)
$15,213,147Total Cost
Prices shown above are as of August 1, 2023. Constru ction cost inflation should be added to the
project hard costs above from the date listed to projected project construction midpoint at a rate of
5% per year.Page 55 of 95
Study Recommendations
›Short-Term Fix: Remodel Station 4, then Station 1
›Stations 2 & 4: Combined all new station approach
›Station 1: Addition and remodel approach
›Station 3: Addition and remodel approach
C NH ARCHITECTS
Page 56 of 95
Questions
South Metro Fire Department Assessment Study
Page 57 of 95
Date: 4/22/2024
Franchise Fees
Proposed Action
Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: No formal action required. Staff seeks
Council direction on further action.
Overview
At the February work session, staff presented information on franchise fees to the City Council.
At that time, the Council reviewed the information, including franchise fee rate structures and
potential funding targets. Since that time, staff complied additional information from the utility
companies that provides a clearer picture of possible revenues.
Under Minnesota Statute 216B.36, cities can impose a fee on utility companies that use the public
rights-of-way to deliver service. The City can determine the amount, structure, and use of
franchise fees. Generally, they are structured as a flat rate per utility account, or a percentage of
consumption used by each utility account. In Minnesota, most franchise fees are flat rates. The
information included in this report reflects the flat rate approach, since it is not susceptible to
energy price and usage patterns, allowing the revenues to be more predictable.
Lakeville currently has franchise agreements with all four utility providers; CenterPoint Energy,
Minnesota Energy Resources Company ("MERC"), Xcel Energy, Inc. ("Xcel Energy"), and
Dakota Electric Association, that allow franchise fees to be implemented.
Page 58 of 95
What Other Cities Collect Utility Franchise Fees?
Below is a table that shows Lakeville's comparable market cities and their franchise fee rate
structures. Some uses of funds include pavement management, sustainability, and trail/park
maintenance.
Electric and Gas Accounts
There are currently 28,858 residential electric accounts, 26,792 residential gas accounts, 2,107
commercial electric accounts, and 1,226 commercial gas accounts. The table below shows several
different monthly rate amounts and possible annual revenues.
Page 59 of 95
Market Value Data on Exempt Properties
Lakeville’s total Market Value for tax year 2024 is $13,841,264,700 – of which, $603,028,400
(4.4%) is exempt from Property Taxes.
Exempt Properties Market Value
Non-city Parcels with Buildings $464,899,900
City-Owned Parcels (some land w/o bldgs)$134,646,800
Land-only Properties* (ROWs, cemeteries, etc.)$3,481,700
* Franchise fees would not be able to be collected from these.
Exempt properties realize the benefits of our roads, public safety services, and public infrastructure
with no cost to them. Through franchise fees, new construction homes (eliminating the one to two-
year lag before City receives property taxes) and renters would also contribute toward municipal
service costs.
Under Minnesota Statute 216B.36, cities can impose a fee on utility companies to, “raise revenue
or defray increased municipal costs accruing as a result of utility operations, or both.” Listed below
are upcoming projects that could be funded by franchise fees.
Annual Levy Required
Financial Targets FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029
2025 - 2029
Total
Pavement Management *$2,130,500 $2,194,415 $2,194,415 $2,260,247 $2,260,247 $11,039,824
Public Safety Training Facility **$1,116,613 $1,116,613 $1,116,613 $1,116,613 $1,116,613 $5,583,067
Fire Station Remodels/Builds ***$2,372,803 $2,372,803 $2,372,803 $3,768,251 $3,768,251 $14,654,913
Building Maintenance Fund *$150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $175,000 $775,000
Veh/Equip Rplcmt Fund *$500,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $8,000,000
Construction
Timeline 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2025-2029
Public Safety Training
Facility **$16,000,000 $16,000,000
Fire Station
Remodels/Builds ***$26,000,000 $18,000,000 $20,000,000 $64,000,000
* Current funding source is Operating Levy
** Current funding source is bonding ($16M) or additional grants. Total project is $21M-$24M, $7M fed grant secured; constr in
2025
*** FD Option D3 - Current funding source is bonding ($44M in 2025, $20M in 2028). 2024 Renovation costs (Stn1 & 4) total
$389K (from Bldg fund-Psfty Aid)
If the City Council wishes to move forward with franchise fees, staff will begin preliminary
communications with the two gas and two electric providers in Lakeville regarding the
requirements for implementing new franchise fees. Each provider has a franchise agreement in
place that will need to be amended. The City would then adopt an ordinance for each service
provider to enact the fee. The ordinance would contain the governing terms of the fees imposed,
Page 60 of 95
along with setting effective and expiration dates. Future City Council action may change or
eliminate the fee within a new ordinance.
After City Council approval, the City would be required to notify the Minnesota Public Utility
Commission and then allow time for the utility companies to implement the fees into their billing
processes. The new revenue is collected by the utility providers from their customers along with
their normal billing procedures. Service providers transfer funds to the City on a quarterly basis.
Supporting Information
Financial Impact: $Budgeted: No Source:
Envision Lakeville Community Values: Good Value for Public Service
Report Completed by: Courtney Miller, Assistant to the City Administrator
Page 61 of 95
Date: 4/22/2024
Local Preference in Contracting
Proposed Action
For discussion only.
Overview
At its annual retreat, the City Council requested staff to review the possibility of providing
preference to local contractors or services when bidding for or proposing projects. This question
was reviewed by the City Attorney and attached is the response. Staff is seeking Council
direction on how to proceed.
Supporting Information
1. Memorandum from Campbell Knutson
Financial Impact: $0 Budgeted: No Source:
Envision Lakeville Community Values: Good Value for Public Service
Report Completed by: Allyn Kuennen, Assistant City Administrator
Page 62 of 95
1
230612v1
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Allyn Kuennen
FROM: Andrea McDowell Poehler
DATE: April 10, 2024
RE: Local Preference in Contracting
______________________________________________________________________________
QUESTION PRESENTED
Can the City of Lakeville (“City”) add a local bidding preference when contracting for goods or
services?
DISCUSSION
I. Minnesota cities have no authority to add a local bidding preference to projects that
are let through competitive bidding.
Minnesota cities “have no inherent powers and possess only such powers as are expressly
conferred by statute or implied as necessary in aid of those powers which have been expressly
conferred.” Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield, 274 Minn. 347, 357, 143 N.W.2d 813,
820 (1966). While the Minnesota Statutes do give cities the authority to enter into contracts, the
statutes also require cities to follow specific procedures for awarding certain types of contracts.
Under Minnesota Statutes Section 471.345 contracts in excess of $175,000 must be competitively
bid and under Minnesota Statutes Sections 412.311 1 and 429.041 2 the City Council must let the
contract to the lowest responsible bidder. The City cannot have a local preference in awarding
competitively bid contracts because competitively bid contracts are required by law to be awarded
to the lowest responsible bidder without regard to locality.
II. A city could have a local preference for contracts that are not let through competitive
bidding.
Local preference in public contracting has been challenged on Constitutional grounds. The
challenges have included claims that the local preference violates (1) the Commerce Clause, (2)
the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and (3) the Equal Protection Clause. The challenges have
failed.
1 Contracts for the purchase of merchandise, materials or equipment or for any kind of
construction work.
2 Contracts for local improvements.
Page 63 of 95
2
230612v1
A. Commerce Clause
The Commerce Clause prohibits state and local governments from taking actions that burden
interstate commerce. U.S. Const. Art. I § 8; Healy v. Beer Institute, Inc., 491 U.S. 324 fn. 1. (1989).
There is a well-recognized exception to the Commerce Clause for “market participants” that was
established in Hughes v. Alexandria Scap Corp., 426 U.S. 794 (1976). In Hughes, the United States
Supreme Court upheld a State of Maryland local preference in favor of in-state scrap metal
processors. The local preference did not violate the commerce clause because the state was acting
as a market participant when it paid bounties more readily to in-state scrap processors for the
destruction of junk vehicles formerly titled in Maryland. The local preference also did not violate
the Equal Protection Clause because the state had a rational basis for the local preference.
B. Privileges and Immunities Clause
The Privileges and Immunities Clause prevents states and local governments from discriminating
against citizens of other states. U.S. Const. Art. 4 § 2. The Privileges and Immunities clause is not
applicable to corporations. Western and Southern Life Ins. Co. v. State Bd. Of Equalization of
California, 451 U.S. 648, 656 (1981). Since local preferences affect corporations, it is not likely
the Privileges and Immunities Clause would be a substantial basis for a challenge to a local
preference.
Even if the Privileges and Immunities Clause were applicable, in order to overcome a Privileges
and Immunities Clause challenge, a local preference must (1) not burden a fundamental privilege
protected by the Clause; or (2) if it does burden a fundamental privilege, there must be a
“substantial reason” for discrimination against citizens of another state. See United Building &
Construction Trades Council of Camden County & Vicinity v. Mayor and Council of the City of
Camden, 465 U.S. 208, 222 (1984). As justification offered for a discriminatory law, nonresidents
must be shown to “constitute a peculiar source of the evil at which the statute is aimed.” Id.
However, “every inquiry under the Privileges and Immunities Clause must [* * *] be conducted
with due regard for the principle that states should have considerable leeway in analyzing local
evils and in prescribing cures. This caution is particularly appropriate when a governmental body
is merely setting conditions on the expenditure of funds it controls.” Id. at 222-223.
C. Equal Protection
The Equal Protection Clause provides no state may “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. Amend. XIV § 1. Under the Equal Protection Clause a
classification that does not impinge on a fundamental right or discriminate against a suspect class
will be upheld if the classification is rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose.
Armour v. City of Indianapolis, 566 U.S. 673, 680 (2012). With respect to government contracts,
the Supreme Court has said that “like private individuals and businesses, the government enjoys
unrestricted power to produce its own supplies, to determine with whom to deal and to fix the
terms and conditions upon which it will make needed purchases.” Perkins v. Lukens Steel Co., 310
U.S. 113, 127 (1940). This leaves little room for an equal protection challenge under the rational
Page 64 of 95
3
230612v1
basis test if the local preference serves a legitimate interest such as encouraging local industry or
enhancing the local tax base.
D. Federal Grants
While local preference may not be prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, many federal grants
prohibit local preference in contracting.
II. What are the advantages and disadvantages of local preference policies?
Commentators have identified the following advantages of local preference policies:
• Local preference policies assist the local economy.
• Local preference policies improve and protect the local economy.
• Local preference policies keep tax dollars spent on contracts in the community.
Commentators have also identified the following disadvantages of local preference policies:
• Local preference policies increase the costs of projects for local taxpayers.
• Local preference policies limit competition among suppliers.
• Local preference policies reduce the incentive for local businesses to provide the best value
for the dollar for the purchased goods or services.
• Local preference policies limit the pool of suppliers. High quality suppliers may be
excluded to the detriment of the City.
• Local preference policies affect, complicate, and potentially burden the procurement
administrative processes.
• Local preference policies invite reciprocal policies being enacted in other jurisdictions
limiting the ability of local businesses to do business in other jurisdictions.
• Local preference policies subsidize certain businesses with tax dollars.
III. What are the challenges in implementing local preference policies.
Commentators have identified several challenges in implementing local preference policies.
One challenge is defining what is “local”. Does local mean the City, zip code, county, state,
country, or continent? Also, who will be covered by the preference in that geographic area?
Residents of the area? Taxpayers? Companies with a majority of employees living in the area?
Companies with a majority shareholders living in the area? Companies headquartered in the area?
Companies with a principal place of business in the area? Companies located outside the area
whose owner lives in the area. Cities need to determine a defensible and fair process for
determining the definition of a local business.
Another challenge is defining the preference. How will local suppliers be preferred? There are
three types of local preferences: (1) hiring preferences, which require contractors to hire a certain
percentage of local workers; (2) purchasing preferences, which require contractors to use supplies
Page 65 of 95
4
230612v1
or materials that are made locally; or (3) contract award preferences, which give local proposers
an advantage in the award of public contracts.
CONCLUSION
The City cannot apply a local preference to contracts that have to be competitively bid. The City
can apply a local preference to contracts that do not have to be competitively bid. However, the
City should carefully consider the advantages, disadvantages, and challenges of implementing a
local preference policy.
Page 66 of 95
Date: 04/22/2024
2024A Bond Issuance -Street Reconstruction & Park Referendum Projects
Proposed Action:
Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: No formal action required. Staff is seeking
Council direction regarding the issuance of 2024A bonds.
Overview
Staff is presenting the 2024A bond issuance for your consideration. The bonds will provide
funding for the following projects:
•#24-02 – 2024 Street Reconstruction Project
•#24-03 – Collector Rehabilitation
•Park Referendum Projects
The 2024A bond issuance is estimated to be $22,365,000. It reflects the following:
•The term of the bonds is 20 years:
o $7,290,000 - Street reconstruction portion = 10 years
o $15,075,000 - Park referendum portion = 20 years
•The structure of the 2024A bonds is compliant with the City’s Debt Policy such that the
total maturity length is equal to or less than 20 years and at least 50% of the principal will
be retired within 10 years.
The City’s municipal advisor, Northland Securities, has prepared the attached Finance Plan for
the 2024A bond issuance.
Financial Impacts
Based on the current bond estimate, the following chart shows the estimated 2025 debt service
levy:
2024 Debt Service Levy $11,537,150
Levy Adjustment for Existing Debt 51,547
Levy for New 2024A Debt Issue-Street 772,480
Levy for New 2024A Debt Issue-Park Referendum 1,154,333
Page 67 of 95
Levy for Est 2025A Debt Issue-Street 93,529
Subtotal 2,071,889
Estimated 2025 Debt Service Levy $13,609,039
One-time reductions were made in the 2024 debt service levy due to excess reserves available in
the debt service funds. The $2,071,889 increase in debt service levy represents a 4.75% increase
based on the total 2024 property tax levy. The estimate includes levies for the 2025 bond
issuance, as well, to cover the first estimated interest payment. Staff will be reviewing cash
balances in the debt service funds to see if there are opportunities to reduce the 2025 debt service
levy. Staff will also be reviewing the 2024A debt structure to determine what changes can be
made to moderate the impact on the tax levy.
The 2025 total tax levy will also be impacted by other adjustments to revenues and expenditures,
service levels, project funding, etc.
Park Referendum Bonds
The following chart shows the timelines and bond issuance amounts:
Issuance
Year/Serie
s
Amount Projects First Year of
Impact to Levy
2022B $4,845,000 Hasse Arena public multi-use pavilion
(outdoor rink)
2023
2022C $13,735,000 Art Center improvements, Park ID sign
replacements, basketball court
replacements, Antlers Community Park
improvements, trails gaps/connectivity
design and ROW acquisition; Ritter Farm
Park cabin and site improvements design.
2023
2023A $4,345,000 Trails gaps/connectivity construction; Ritter
Farm Park cabin and site improvements
construction.
2024
2024A $15,075,000 Avonlea Community Park design and
construction; East Community Park design
and construction.
2025
$38,000,000 Maximum Bonding Authorized
Page 68 of 95
Funding from Dakota County is anticipated for several of the projects. Other funding sources
(i.e. Park Dedication Funds, Utility Funds, General Fund reserves, etc.) or project reductions will
need to be identified for project costs more than the maximum bonding.
Staff is combining the 2024A park referendum projects above with the 2024 street reconstruction
bonds. This approach will save the City money by limiting costs of bond issuance.
Also attached to this memo is a summary of the tax levies for the four park referendum bond
issuances. The 2024A estimate is based on the Finance Plan. The 2024 bond issuance estimate
is based on the remaining amount that the City would be authorized to issue.
Key dates coming up for the 2024A Bonds:
May 20, 2024 ➢Council adopts resolution setting the sale of bonds.
June 17, 2024 ➢Bond Sale – 10:00 a.m.
➢Council adopts resolution approving the bond sale.
July 17, 2024 ➢Closing on Bonds.
Supporting Information
1. 1. Preliminary Finance Plan – April 22, 2024
2. 2. Park Referendum Debt Levies
Financial Impact: $ 22,365,000 Budgeted: Yes Source: Various
Envision Lakeville Community Values: Good Value for Public Service
Report Completed by: Julie Stahl, Finance Director
Page 69 of 95
Finance Plan
City of Lakeville, Minnesota
$22,365,000
General Obligation Bonds, Series 2024A
April 22, 2024
150 South 5th Street, Suite 3300
Minneapolis, MN 55402
612-851-5900 800-851-2920
www.northlandsecurities.com
Member FINRA and SIPC | Registered with SEC and MSRB
Page 70 of 95
Contents
Executive Summary
Issue Overview
Purpose
Authority
Structure
Security and Source of Repayment
Plan Rationale
Issuing Process
Attachment 1 – Preliminary Debt Service Schedules
Attachment 2 – Estimated Levy Schedules
Attachment 3 – Related Considerations
Not Bank Qualified
Arbitrage Compliance
Continuing Disclosure
Premiums
Rating
Attachment 4 – Calendar of Events
Attachment 5 - Risk Factors
Page 71 of 95
Northland Securities, Inc. Page 2
Executive Summary
The following is a summary of the recommended terms for the issuance of $22,365,000 General
Obligation Bonds, Series 2024A (the “Bonds”). Additional information on the proposed finance
plan and issuing process can be found after the Executive Summary, in the Issue Overview and
Attachment 3 – Related Considerations.
Purpose Proceeds from the Bonds will be used to finance the City’s 2024
street reconstruction projects and various park improvements,
and to finance the costs associated with the issuance of the
Bonds.
Security The Bonds will be a general obligation of the City. The City will
pledge ad valorem taxes for payment of the Bonds.
Repayment Term The Bonds will mature annually each February 1 in the years
2026 through 2045. Interest on the Bonds will be payable on
February 1, 2025, and semiannually thereafter on each February
1 and August 1.
Estimated Interest Rate True interest cost (TIC): 3.90%
Interest rates are estimated based on Non-BQ “Aaa” rates as of
April 5, 2024, plus 0.25% for planning purposes.
Prepayment Option Bonds maturing on and after February 1, 2033, will be subject
to redemption on February 1, 2032, and any day thereafter at a
price of par plus accrued interest.
Rating A rating will be requested from Moody’s Investor Services
(Moody’s). The City’s general obligation debt is currently rated
"Aaa” by Moody’s.
Tax Status The Bonds will be tax-exempt, non-bank qualified obligations.
Risk Factors There are certain risks associated with all debt. Risk factors
related to the Bonds are discussed in Attachment 5.
Type of Bond Sale Public Sale – Competitive Bids
Proposals Received Monday, June 17, 2024 @ 10:00 A.M.
Council Consideration Monday, June 17, 2024 @ 6:00 P.M.
Page 72 of 95
Northland Securities, Inc. Page 3
Issue Overview
Purpose
Proceeds from the Bonds will be used to finance the following projects (together, the “Projects”):
• the 2024 street reconstruction and collector rehabilitation project (the “Street
Reconstruction Portion”); and
• various park projects as approved by voters on November 2, 2021 (the “Park Referendum
Portion”).
The proceeds will also be used to pay costs associated with issuing the Bonds. The Bonds have
been sized based on cost estimates provided by City Staff as of April 10, 2024. The table below
contains the estimated sources and uses of funds for the bond issue.
Authority
The Bonds will be issued pursuant to the authority of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475 and Section
475.58, Subdivision 3b.
Street Reconstruction Portion
Under Section 475.58, Subdivision 3b., street reconstruction bonds can be used to finance the
reconstruction and bituminous overlay of existing city streets. Eligible improvements may
include turn lanes and other improvements having a substantial public safety function,
realignments, other modifications to intersect with state and county roads and the local share of
state and county road projects. Eligible improvements do not include the portion of project cost
allocable to widening a street or adding curbs and gutters where none previously existed.
Before issuing street reconstruction bonds, the City must hold a public hearing on the street
reconstruction project and the proposed bonds, and then must pass a resolution approving the
Street Reconstruction Plan and issuance of street reconstruction bonds. The City held the required
public hearing and approved the Street Reconstruction Plan on October 2, 2023.
Park Referendum Portion
The Park Referendum Portion will be issued pursuant to Chapter 475 and a park referendum held
on November 2, 2021, and approved by voters by a margin of 7,346 “Yes” votes to 4,681 “No”
votes, resulting in 61.08% approval. This issuance will use the remaining amount approved by
voters.
2024 Street
Reconstruction
& Collector
Rehab Proj.
Park
Referendum
Issue
Summary
Sources Of Funds
Par Amount of Bonds $7,290,000.00 $15,075,000.00 $22,365,000.00
Total Sources $7,290,000.00 $15,075,000.00 $22,365,000.00
Uses Of Funds
Deposit to Project Construction Fund 7,045,000.00 14,538,000.00 21,583,000.00
Deposit to Capitalized Interest (CIF) Fund 128,639.51 304,130.03 432,769.54
Total Underwriter's Discount (1.050%)76,545.00 158,287.50 234,832.50
Costs of Issuance 35,748.14 73,923.64 109,671.78
Rounding Amount 4,067.35 658.83 4,726.18
Total Uses $7,290,000.00 $15,075,000.00 $22,365,000.00
Page 73 of 95
Northland Securities, Inc. Page 4
Structure
The Street Reconstruction Portion of the Bonds has been structured to result in relatively level
annual debt service payments over 10 years. The Park Referendum Portion has been structured
to result in relatively level annual debt service payments over 20 years.
The proposed structure for the bond issue and preliminary debt service projections for each
portion of the bond issue are illustrated in Attachment 1 and the estimated levies are illustrated
in Attachment 2.
Security and Source of Repayment
The Bonds will be general obligations of the City. The finance plan relies on the following
assumptions for the revenues used to pay debt service, as provided by City staff:
• Special Assessments. Although not pledged as security to the Bonds, the City is expected
to levy special assessments against benefited properties in the amount of $862,000 for the
Street Reconstruction Portion of the Bonds. The assessments are structured for level annual
payments of principal with interest charged at a rate of 2% over the True Interest Cost of
the Street Reconstruction Portion of the Bonds (currently estimated to be 5.50%). The plan
assumes that the assessments will be levied in 2024 for initial payment in 2025.
• Property Taxes. The revenues needed to pay debt service on the Bonds are expected to
come from property tax levies. The initial projections show that for the Street
Reconstruction Portion of the Bonds, an annual net levy ranging from approximately
$772,480 to $822,370, is needed to meet the 105% statutory requirement. The initial
projections show that for the Park Referendum Portion of the bonds, an annual levy
averaging $1,156,533, is needed to meet the 105% statutory requirement. The levy may be
adjusted annually based on actual monies in the debt service fund. The initial levies will
be made in 2024 for taxes payable in 2023.
Given the timing of the initial revenue from the tax levy, capitalized interest will be
included in the bond issue to cover the first interest payment due on February 1, 2025,
before the first tax collections are received.
Plan Rationale
The Finance Plan recommended in this report is based on a variety of factors and information
provided by the City related to the financed project and City objectives, Northland’s knowledge
of the City and our experience in working with similar cities and projects. The issuance of General
Obligation Bonds provides the best means of achieving the City’s objectives and cost-effective
financing. The City has successfully issued and managed this type of debt for previous projects.
Issuing Process
Northland will receive bids from underwriters to purchase the Bonds on Monday, June 17, 2024,
at 10:00 A.M. Market conditions and the marketability of the Bonds support issuance through a
competitive sale. This process has been chosen as it is intended to produce the lowest combination
of interest expense and underwriting expense on the structure, date and time set to receive bids.
The calendar of events for the issuing process can be found in Attachment 4.
Municipal Advisor: Northland Securities, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota
Bond Counsel: Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Paying Agent: US Bank Trust Company, National Association, St. Paul, Minnesota
Page 74 of 95
Northland Securities, Inc. Page 5
Attachment 1 – Preliminary Debt Service Schedules
Total Combined
*Based on preliminary, Non-Bank Qualified “Aaa” rates as of April 5, 2024, plus 0.25%.
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total
07/17/2024 -----
02/01/2025 --432,769.54 432,769.54 432,769.54
08/01/2025 --401,538.75 401,538.75 -
02/01/2026 1,165,000.00 3.400%401,538.75 1,566,538.75 1,968,077.50
08/01/2026 --381,733.75 381,733.75 -
02/01/2027 1,205,000.00 3.250%381,733.75 1,586,733.75 1,968,467.50
08/01/2027 --362,152.50 362,152.50 -
02/01/2028 1,245,000.00 3.200%362,152.50 1,607,152.50 1,969,305.00
08/01/2028 --342,232.50 342,232.50 -
02/01/2029 1,285,000.00 3.200%342,232.50 1,627,232.50 1,969,465.00
08/01/2029 --321,672.50 321,672.50 -
02/01/2030 1,325,000.00 3.150%321,672.50 1,646,672.50 1,968,345.00
08/01/2030 --300,803.75 300,803.75 -
02/01/2031 1,365,000.00 3.150%300,803.75 1,665,803.75 1,966,607.50
08/01/2031 --279,305.00 279,305.00 -
02/01/2032 1,410,000.00 3.150%279,305.00 1,689,305.00 1,968,610.00
08/01/2032 --257,097.50 257,097.50 -
02/01/2033 1,455,000.00 3.250%257,097.50 1,712,097.50 1,969,195.00
08/01/2033 --233,453.75 233,453.75 -
02/01/2034 1,500,000.00 3.400%233,453.75 1,733,453.75 1,966,907.50
08/01/2034 --207,953.75 207,953.75 -
02/01/2035 1,555,000.00 3.550%207,953.75 1,762,953.75 1,970,907.50
08/01/2035 --180,352.50 180,352.50 -
02/01/2036 740,000.00 3.650%180,352.50 920,352.50 1,100,705.00
08/01/2036 --166,847.50 166,847.50 -
02/01/2037 770,000.00 3.800%166,847.50 936,847.50 1,103,695.00
08/01/2037 --152,217.50 152,217.50 -
02/01/2038 795,000.00 3.800%152,217.50 947,217.50 1,099,435.00
08/01/2038 --137,112.50 137,112.50 -
02/01/2039 830,000.00 3.900%137,112.50 967,112.50 1,104,225.00
08/01/2039 --120,927.50 120,927.50 -
02/01/2040 860,000.00 4.000%120,927.50 980,927.50 1,101,855.00
08/01/2040 --103,727.50 103,727.50 -
02/01/2041 895,000.00 4.050%103,727.50 998,727.50 1,102,455.00
08/01/2041 --85,603.75 85,603.75 -
02/01/2042 930,000.00 4.150%85,603.75 1,015,603.75 1,101,207.50
08/01/2042 --66,306.25 66,306.25 -
02/01/2043 970,000.00 4.250%66,306.25 1,036,306.25 1,102,612.50
08/01/2043 --45,693.75 45,693.75 -
02/01/2044 1,010,000.00 4.400%45,693.75 1,055,693.75 1,101,387.50
08/01/2044 --23,473.75 23,473.75 -
02/01/2045 1,055,000.00 4.450%23,473.75 1,078,473.75 1,101,947.50
Total $22,365,000.00 -$8,773,182.04 $31,138,182.04 -
Yield Statistics
Bond Year Dollars $229,992.25
Average Life 10.284 Years
Average Coupon 3.8145555%
Net Interest Cost (NIC)3.9166600%
True Interest Cost (TIC)3.9047308%
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 3.7745834%
All Inclusive Cost (AIC)3.9662180%
IRS Form 8038
Net Interest Cost 3.8145555%
Weighted Average Maturity 10.284 Years
Optional Redemption
02/01/2032 @100.000%
Page 75 of 95
Northland Securities, Inc. Page 6
Street Reconstruction Portion
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total
07/17/2024 -----
02/01/2025 --128,639.51 128,639.51 128,639.51
08/01/2025 --119,356.25 119,356.25 -
02/01/2026 630,000.00 3.400%119,356.25 749,356.25 868,712.50
08/01/2026 --108,646.25 108,646.25 -
02/01/2027 650,000.00 3.250%108,646.25 758,646.25 867,292.50
08/01/2027 --98,083.75 98,083.75 -
02/01/2028 670,000.00 3.200%98,083.75 768,083.75 866,167.50
08/01/2028 --87,363.75 87,363.75 -
02/01/2029 695,000.00 3.200%87,363.75 782,363.75 869,727.50
08/01/2029 --76,243.75 76,243.75 -
02/01/2030 715,000.00 3.150%76,243.75 791,243.75 867,487.50
08/01/2030 --64,982.50 64,982.50 -
02/01/2031 735,000.00 3.150%64,982.50 799,982.50 864,965.00
08/01/2031 --53,406.25 53,406.25 -
02/01/2032 760,000.00 3.150%53,406.25 813,406.25 866,812.50
08/01/2032 --41,436.25 41,436.25 -
02/01/2033 785,000.00 3.250%41,436.25 826,436.25 867,872.50
08/01/2033 --28,680.00 28,680.00 -
02/01/2034 810,000.00 3.400%28,680.00 838,680.00 867,360.00
08/01/2034 --14,910.00 14,910.00 -
02/01/2035 840,000.00 3.550%14,910.00 854,910.00 869,820.00
Total $7,290,000.00 -$1,514,857.01 $8,804,857.01 -
Page 76 of 95
Northland Securities, Inc. Page 7
Park Referendum Portion
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total
07/17/2024 -----
02/01/2025 --304,130.03 304,130.03 304,130.03
08/01/2025 --282,182.50 282,182.50 -
02/01/2026 535,000.00 3.400%282,182.50 817,182.50 1,099,365.00
08/01/2026 --273,087.50 273,087.50 -
02/01/2027 555,000.00 3.250%273,087.50 828,087.50 1,101,175.00
08/01/2027 --264,068.75 264,068.75 -
02/01/2028 575,000.00 3.200%264,068.75 839,068.75 1,103,137.50
08/01/2028 --254,868.75 254,868.75 -
02/01/2029 590,000.00 3.200%254,868.75 844,868.75 1,099,737.50
08/01/2029 --245,428.75 245,428.75 -
02/01/2030 610,000.00 3.150%245,428.75 855,428.75 1,100,857.50
08/01/2030 --235,821.25 235,821.25 -
02/01/2031 630,000.00 3.150%235,821.25 865,821.25 1,101,642.50
08/01/2031 --225,898.75 225,898.75 -
02/01/2032 650,000.00 3.150%225,898.75 875,898.75 1,101,797.50
08/01/2032 --215,661.25 215,661.25 -
02/01/2033 670,000.00 3.250%215,661.25 885,661.25 1,101,322.50
08/01/2033 --204,773.75 204,773.75 -
02/01/2034 690,000.00 3.400%204,773.75 894,773.75 1,099,547.50
08/01/2034 --193,043.75 193,043.75 -
02/01/2035 715,000.00 3.550%193,043.75 908,043.75 1,101,087.50
08/01/2035 --180,352.50 180,352.50 -
02/01/2036 740,000.00 3.650%180,352.50 920,352.50 1,100,705.00
08/01/2036 --166,847.50 166,847.50 -
02/01/2037 770,000.00 3.800%166,847.50 936,847.50 1,103,695.00
08/01/2037 --152,217.50 152,217.50 -
02/01/2038 795,000.00 3.800%152,217.50 947,217.50 1,099,435.00
08/01/2038 --137,112.50 137,112.50 -
02/01/2039 830,000.00 3.900%137,112.50 967,112.50 1,104,225.00
08/01/2039 --120,927.50 120,927.50 -
02/01/2040 860,000.00 4.000%120,927.50 980,927.50 1,101,855.00
08/01/2040 --103,727.50 103,727.50 -
02/01/2041 895,000.00 4.050%103,727.50 998,727.50 1,102,455.00
08/01/2041 --85,603.75 85,603.75 -
02/01/2042 930,000.00 4.150%85,603.75 1,015,603.75 1,101,207.50
08/01/2042 --66,306.25 66,306.25 -
02/01/2043 970,000.00 4.250%66,306.25 1,036,306.25 1,102,612.50
08/01/2043 --45,693.75 45,693.75 -
02/01/2044 1,010,000.00 4.400%45,693.75 1,055,693.75 1,101,387.50
08/01/2044 --23,473.75 23,473.75 -
02/01/2045 1,055,000.00 4.450%23,473.75 1,078,473.75 1,101,947.50
Total $15,075,000.00 -$7,258,325.03 $22,333,325.03 -
Page 77 of 95
Northland Securities, Inc. Page 8
Attachment 2 – Estimated Levy Schedules
Street Reconstruction Portion
Park Referendum Portion
Date Total P+I CIF 105% Levy
Less: Special
Assessment
Revenue*Net Levy
Levy
Year
Collection
Year
02/01/2025 128,639.51 (128,639.51)---
02/01/2026 868,712.50 -912,148.13 139,667.94 772,480.19 2024 2025
02/01/2027 867,292.50 -910,657.13 128,869.00 781,788.13 2025 2026
02/01/2028 866,167.50 -909,475.88 124,128.00 785,347.88 2026 2027
02/01/2029 869,727.50 -913,213.88 119,387.00 793,826.88 2027 2028
02/01/2030 867,487.50 -910,861.88 114,646.00 796,215.88 2028 2029
02/01/2031 864,965.00 -908,213.25 109,905.00 798,308.25 2029 2030
02/01/2032 866,812.50 -910,153.13 105,164.00 804,989.13 2030 2031
02/01/2033 867,872.50 -911,266.13 100,423.00 810,843.13 2031 2032
02/01/2034 867,360.00 -910,728.00 95,682.00 815,046.00 2032 2033
02/01/2035 869,820.00 -913,311.00 90,941.00 822,370.00 2033 2034
Total $8,804,857.01 (128,639.51)$9,110,028.38 $1,128,812.94 $7,981,215.44
*Special assessment revenue is based on assessments totaling $862,000, spread in equal principal payments
over 10 years and assessed at a rate of 5.50% (2.00% over the True Interest Cost, rounded to the nearest 0.05%).
Date Total P+I CIF 105% Levy
Levy
Year
Collection
Year
02/01/2025 304,130.03 (304,130.03)-
02/01/2026 1,099,365.00 -1,154,333.25 2024 2025
02/01/2027 1,101,175.00 -1,156,233.75 2025 2026
02/01/2028 1,103,137.50 -1,158,294.38 2026 2027
02/01/2029 1,099,737.50 -1,154,724.38 2027 2028
02/01/2030 1,100,857.50 -1,155,900.38 2028 2029
02/01/2031 1,101,642.50 -1,156,724.63 2029 2030
02/01/2032 1,101,797.50 -1,156,887.38 2030 2031
02/01/2033 1,101,322.50 -1,156,388.63 2031 2032
02/01/2034 1,099,547.50 -1,154,524.88 2032 2033
02/01/2035 1,101,087.50 -1,156,141.88 2033 2034
02/01/2036 1,100,705.00 -1,155,740.25 2034 2035
02/01/2037 1,103,695.00 -1,158,879.75 2035 2036
02/01/2038 1,099,435.00 -1,154,406.75 2036 2037
02/01/2039 1,104,225.00 -1,159,436.25 2037 2038
02/01/2040 1,101,855.00 -1,156,947.75 2038 2039
02/01/2041 1,102,455.00 -1,157,577.75 2039 2040
02/01/2042 1,101,207.50 -1,156,267.88 2040 2041
02/01/2043 1,102,612.50 -1,157,743.13 2041 2042
02/01/2044 1,101,387.50 -1,156,456.88 2042 2043
02/01/2045 1,101,947.50 -1,157,044.88 2043 2044
Total $22,333,325.03 (304,130.03)$23,130,654.75
Page 78 of 95
Northland Securities, Inc. Page 9
Attachment 3 – Related Considerations
Not Bank Qualified
We understand the City (in combination with any subordinate taxing jurisdictions or debt issued
in the City’s name by 501(c)3 corporations) anticipates issuing more than $10,000,000 in tax-
exempt debt during this calendar year. Therefore, the Bonds will not be designated as “bank
qualified” obligations pursuant to Federal Tax Law.
Arbitrage Compliance
Project/Construction Fund. All tax-exempt bond issues are subject to federal rebate requirements
which require all arbitrage earned to be rebated to the U.S. Treasury. The rebate exemption the
City expects to qualify for is the “24-month exception.”
Debt Service Fund. The City must maintain a bona fide debt service fund for the Bonds or be
subject to yield restriction in the debt service fund. A bona fide debt service fund involves an
equal matching of revenues to debt service expense with a balance forward permitted equal to
the greater of the investment earnings in the fund during that year or 1/12 of the debt service of
that year.
The City should become familiar with the various Arbitrage Compliance requirements for this
bond issue. The Resolution for the Bonds prepared by Bond Counsel explains the requirements
in greater detail.
Continuing Disclosure
Type: Full
Dissemination Agent: Northland Securities, Inc.
The requirements for continuing disclosure are governed by SEC Rule 15c2-12. The primary
requirements of Rule 15c2-12 actually fall on underwriters. The Rule sets forth due diligence
needed prior to the underwriter’s purchase of municipal securities. Part of this requirement is
obtaining commitment from the issuer to provide continuing disclosure. The document
describing the continuing disclosure commitments (the “Undertaking”) is contained in the
Official Statement that will be prepared to offer the Bonds to investors.
The City has more than $10,000,000 of outstanding debt and is required to undertake “full”
continuing disclosure. Full disclosure requires annual posting of the audit and a separate
continuing disclosure report, as well as the reporting of certain “material events.” Material events
set forth in the Rule, including, but not limited to, bond rating changes, call notices, and issuance
of “financial obligations” (such as USDA loans, Public Finance Authority loans and lease
agreements) must be reported within ten days of occurrence. The report contains annual financial
information and operating data that “mirrors” material information presented in the Official
Statement. The specific contents of the annual report will be described in the Undertaking that
appears in the appendix of the Official Statement. Northland currently serves as dissemination
agent for the City, assisting with the annual reporting. The information for the Bonds will be
incorporated into our reporting.
Premiums
In the current market environment, it is likely that bids received from underwriters will include
premiums. A premium bid occurs when the purchaser pays the City an amount in excess of the
par amount of a maturity in exchange for a higher coupon (interest rate). The use of premiums
Page 79 of 95
Northland Securities, Inc. Page 10
reflects the bidder’s view on future market conditions, tax considerations for investors and other
factors. Ultimately, the true interest cost (“TIC”) calculation will determine the lowest bid,
regardless of premium.
A premium bid produces additional funds that can be used in several ways:
• The premium means that the City needs less bond proceeds and can reduce the size of the
issue by the amount of the premium.
• The premium can be deposited in the Construction Fund and used to pay additional
project costs, rather than used to reduce the size of the issue.
• The premium can be deposited in the Debt Service Fund and used to pay principal and
interest.
Northland will work with City staff prior to the sale day to determine use of premium (if any).
Rating
A rating will be requested from Moody’s Investor Services (Moody’s). The City’s general
obligation debt is currently rated “Aaa” by Moody’s. The rating process will include a conference
call with the rating analyst. Northland will assist City staff in preparing for and conducting the
rating call.
Page 80 of 95
Northland Securities, Inc. Page 11
Attachment 4 – Calendar of Events
The following checklist of items denotes each milestone activity as well as the members of the
finance team who will have the responsibility to complete it. Please note this proposed timetable
assumes regularly scheduled City Council meetings.
Date Action Responsible Party
March 25 City provides preliminary project costs City Staff
April 8 General Information Certificate sent to City for updates
Northland
April 10 City provides final project costs no later than noon City Staff
April 15 Finance Plan sent to City for meeting packet for April
22 Workshop Meeting
Northland
April 22 City Council Workshop to review proposed issuance of
2024A Bonds – 6:00 pm
City Council Review
April 23 Request for rating submitted to Moody’s, and
scheduling of rating call
Northland
April 29 General Information Certificate returned to Northland City Staff
May 6 Preliminary Official Statement sent to City for sign off,
sent to Rating Agency to initiate rating processes, and
sent to Dorsey & Whitney for review
Northland
May 14 Meeting to prepare for rating call City Staff, Northland
April 2024 May 2024
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
28 29 30 26 27 28 29 30 31
June 2024 July 2024
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 1 2 3 4 5 6
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 28 29 30 31
30
Holiday
Page 81 of 95
Northland Securities, Inc. Page 12
Date Action Responsible Party
Week of May 20 or
May 27
Rating call with Moody’s City Staff, Northland,
Rating Agency
May 20 City adopts Set Sale Resolution – 6:00 p.m.
City Council Action,
Northland, Dorsey &
Whitney
May 23 City comments and sign off on Preliminary Official
Statement due to Northland
City Staff
June 3 Rating Received no later than this date City Staff, Northland,
Rating Agency
June 5 Distribution of Preliminary Official Statement Northland
June 10 Authorizing Resolution sent to City Dorsey & Whitney,
Northland
June 17 Bond Sale – 10:00 a.m.
Bond Purchase Agreement Signed - 6:00 p.m.
Authorizing Resolution Adopted
City Council Action,
Northland, Dorsey &
Whitney
June 24 Closing Documents Distributed Dorsey & Whitney
July 17 Closing on the Bonds (Proceeds Available) Northland, City Staff,
Dorsey & Whitney
Page 82 of 95
Northland Securities, Inc. Page 13
Attachment 5 - Risk Factors
Property Taxes: Property tax levies shown in this Finance Plan are based on projected debt service
and other revenues. Final levies will be set based on the results of sale. Levies should be reviewed
annually and adjusted as needed. The debt service levy must be included in the preliminary levy
for annual Truth in Taxation hearings. Future Legislative changes in the property tax system,
including the imposition of levy limits and changes in calculation of property values, would affect
plans for payment of debt service. Delinquent payment of property taxes would reduce revenues
available to pay debt service.
Special Assessments: Special assessments for the financed projects have not been levied at this
time. This Finance Plan is based on the assumptions listed earlier in this report. Changes in the
terms and timing for the actual assessments will alter the projected flow of funds for payment of
debt service on the Bonds. Also, special assessments may be prepaid. It is likely that the income
earned on the investment of prepaid assessments will be less than the interest paid if the
assessments remained outstanding. Delinquencies in assessment collections would reduce
revenues needed to pay debt service. The collection of deferred assessments, if any, have not been
included in the revenue projections. Projected assessment income should be reviewed annually
and adjusted as needed.
General: In addition to the risks described above, there are certain general risks associated with
the issuance of bonds. These risks include, but are not limited to:
• Failure to comply with covenants in bond resolution.
• Failure to comply with Undertaking for continuing disclosure.
• Failure to comply with IRS regulations, including regulations related to use of the proceeds
and arbitrage/rebate. The IRS regulations govern the ability of the City to issue its bonds as
tax-exempt securities and failure to comply with the IRS regulations may lead to loss of tax-
exemption.
Page 83 of 95
Council Workshop 2024.04.22
CITY OF LAKEVILLE
PARK REFERENDUM - DEBT SERVICE TAX LEVIES
2022B 2022C 2023A 2024 (Est)Park
Tax Hasse Park Ref Park Ref Park Ref Refer
Collection Outdoor Rink Projects Projects Projects TOTALS
Year $4,845,000 $13,735,000 $4,345,000 $15,075,000 $38,000,000
2023 340,927 600,000 - - 940,927
2024 337,344 1,104,042 339,990 - 1,781,376
2025 338,601 1,105,880 343,403 1,154,333 2,942,217
2026 339,651 1,106,405 341,040 1,156,234 2,943,330
2027 340,489 1,105,617 343,665 1,158,294 2,948,065
2028 340,998 1,103,517 340,515 1,154,724 2,939,754
2029 341,282 1,105,355 342,353 1,155,900 2,944,889
2030 336,084 1,105,617 338,415 1,156,725 2,936,841
2031 341,271 1,104,305 339,465 1,156,887 2,941,928
2032 340,725 1,101,417 339,990 1,156,389 2,938,521
2033 339,806 1,102,205 339,990 1,154,525 2,936,526
2034 338,378 1,103,465 341,670 1,156,142 2,939,655
2035 336,554 1,103,465 342,930 1,155,740 2,938,689
2036 339,573 1,102,205 343,770 1,158,880 2,944,427
2037 336,769 1,102,874 338,940 1,154,407 2,932,990
2038 338,783 1,102,402 339,150 1,159,436 2,939,770
2039 340,331 1,104,895 338,940 1,156,948 2,941,115
2040 336,005 1,106,011 343,560 1,157,578 2,943,154
2041 336,457 1,104,515 342,300 1,156,268 2,939,539
2042 336,404 1,101,594 340,620 1,157,743 2,936,362
2043 - - 338,520 1,156,457 1,494,977
2044 - - - 1,157,045 1,157,045
TOTALS 6,776,432 21,575,785 6,819,225 23,130,655 58,302,097
Page 84 of 95
Date: 4/22/2024
2023 4th Quarter Financial Report - General Fund
Proposed Action
Discussion only
Overview
The attached financial report and analysis offers readers a narrative overview of the financial
activities of th City for the 2023 4th quarter.
Supporting Information
1. 2023 4th Quarter Financial Report
Financial Impact: $ Budgeted: Yes Source: General Fund
Envision Lakeville Community Values: Good Value for Public Service
Report Completed by: Julie Stahl, Finance Director
Page 85 of 95
i
FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS:
The following financial report and analysis offers readers a narrative overview of the financial activities
of the City for the year ended December 31, 2023. This report only covers the General Fund. Readers
should take note that this information is preliminary as the City’s annual audit has not been
completed and some amounts may be estimated as the final audit work is still being completed. The
readers are encouraged to consider the information presented here in conjunction with the unaudited
financial statements attached to this report, the adopted budget and the five‐year Capital
Improvement Plan.
The City received $3.15 million in one‐time Public Safety Aid funding in December. The City set aside
$1.3 million in the Building Fund. The 2023 financial report reflects $1.85 million of this aid in the
General Fund.
General Fund ‐ Revenues
Total revenues are $335,00 higher than budget estimates and $148,700 lower than the prior year.
Property tax revenues.
General property taxes were lower than budget estimates by $253,000 or 0.9%. All
delinquent taxes are recorded in the General Fund and other funds receive 100% of their
current levy. Tax payments form Dakota County were received in June, July, December,
with the final settlement received in January 2024.
Licenses and Permits.
Licenses and Permit revenues were higher than the amended budget by $173,000. Overall
permit revenue decreased $354,000 over the prior year. The following chart shows the
2023 actual number of building permits as well as a comparison of the 2023 budget to
actual.
YTD 4th 2023 YTD 4th
Quarter Adopted Quarter
Permit Type 2022 Budget 2023
Single Family 325 350 309
Townhome 222 120 152
Apartments (Units) 13 (167 units) 1 (200 units) 9 (252 units)
Commercial 11 4 8
Industrial 0 2 2
Page 86 of 95
ii
Historical Building Permits
As shown in the chart below building permits for single family had record breaking years in
2019, 2020 and 2021 and now trending to a steady growth as seen in years past. The mix of
permit types is changing to include a mix of townhomes and apartment complexes.
Intergovernmental.
Intergovernmental revenues are higher than the amended budget estimates by $104,000.
Police State Aid ($642,000) was $62,000 higher than the original budget and prior year.
Fire State Aid exceeded the original budget by $58,000. Revenues for public safety
programs such as traffic safety, protective vest replacement grants and firefighter training
grants continue to be strong.
Intergovernmental revenues are lower than the prior year by $2.7 million. This is primarily
due to the City recognizing $4,873,307 related to the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) in
2022. In 2023 the City received $3.15 million in one‐time Public Safety Aid funding and
$1.85 million of this aid is in the General Fund – the remainder is reflected in the Building
Fund.
Charges for Services.
Charges for Services are below amended budget estimates by $264,000.
General government services are higher than amended budget estimates by $152,000 and
are exceeding the prior year estimate by $186,000. $258,000 has been received for fiscal
agent fees from the Dakota 911 and Lakeville Arenas which is a majority of the increase
between budget and comparison with the prior year.
Page 87 of 95
iii
Public Safety revenues are $27,000 lower than budget estimates. Police security services
are in line with the prior year. SRO contributions are down from budget estimates due to
changes in staffing of the SRO Officers. The current agreement with Eureka Township
results in a 2023 fee of $49,350 and was billed out in June of the current year.
Public works revenues for engineering‐related services in connection with developer
construction administration, inspection, and GIS are lower than the amended budget by
$376,000 and prior year by $711,000. This is consistent with the level of developmental
activity.
Parks and Recreation revenues are $17,000 higher than amended budget and slightly
higher compared to 2022. The Arts Center revenues are $30,000 less than budget
estimates but $121,00 higher than 2022. Increased programing at the Arts Center
contributed to the variance.
Court Fines.
• Revenues from court fines ($238,000) are in line with budget estimates and are higher than
the prior year by $13,000. Court fine revenues and the membership fees paid to the Dakota
911 are both impacted by the number of CAD calls. COVID‐19 impacted court fines in past
years but are showing moderate increases compared to prior revenues during COVID‐19.
Investment Revenue and Miscellaneous
Investment income is $730,000 due to increase in market conditions at the end of 2023.
The 2023 budget was anticipating $281,000 in investment revenue. The investment
gain is comprised of investment earnings of $351,000 and an increase for the market
value adjustment of $379,000. Investments are typically held until maturity and any
potential losses in the market value will likely be gained back in future periods.
General Fund ‐ Expenditures
Total expenditures are about $752,000 or 2.0 % less than the amended budget. This is offset by
the budget for transfers from (in) other funds for a net increase of $307,000. Transfers in are now
accounted for within the applicable departments to account for interfund allocations.
Personnel Services – Personnel services of $26,665,203 were lower than the amended budget
by $643,254 or 3.0%. Compared to 2022, personnel services were $1.6M higher in 2023.
Higher costs were due to additional staff added in 2023. Four police officers, a crime analyst
and a Parks Maintenance II position were new additions in 2023. The increase was partially
offset with savings that resulted from employee vacancies, leave without pay and lower hours
for seasonal positions.
Motor Fuels. Motor fuels expense is $91,000 higher than the budget and $55,000 higher than
in 2022 as fuel costs continue to rise. The City does have a contract for fuel prices in place to
mitigate some of the price increases.
Street Chemicals. 2023 deicing materials were equal to budget estimates and under the
amended budget by $10,000. 2023 costs exceeded the prior year by $24,000. Purchases at the
Page 88 of 95
iv
end of the 2023‐2024 winter season will be stored at the central maintenance facility and will
be utilized in the late fall if needed. City staff complete a mid‐year inventory calculation.
Utilities. Electric costs in 2023 were $84,000 lower than in 2022 and within the amended
budget. Energy saving improvements in lighting and building automation continues to help in
reducing energy consumption. Natural gas costs in 2023 were $77,000 lower than in 2022.
Mayor and Council. Expenditures are consistent with the amended budget and with the same
period in 2022.
City Administration. Expenditures are consistent with the amended budget. Overall are higher
than the prior year due to a community survey and update to the Envision Lakeville report.
City Clerk. Expenditures are down compared to the prior year due to election costs in the Fall
of 2022. The County had billed for election equipment costs in the first quarter of 2022.
Legal. Legal fees were 24 percent under budget estimates. Expenditures are slightly lower than
the same period in 2022.
Planning. Salaries are down in 2023 due to the vacant Planning & Zoning Specialist position
being filled with an outside contractor.
Community and Economic Development. Salaries are down in 2023 due to retirement of
Community and Economic Development director in 2022 and related severance payout.
Inspections. Salaries are higher than budget and the previous year due to filling a vacant
Building Inspector position during the first quarter of 2023 and the retirement of the Building
Official. Capital outlay exceeded budget primarily due to the delays between ordering and
receiving vehicles.
General Government Facilities. Salaries are up over the same period in 2022 resulting from
employee transitions and vacancies in 2022. Commodities and other charges and services are
within the amended budget estimates.
Finance Department. Expenditures overall are in line with the amended budget. Personnel
costs are higher than the previous year due to staff transitioning through the step process and
additional temporary resources for the ERP implementation.
Information Technology. Timing of annual maintenance agreements can impact the expense
comparison each year. However, this department is lower than budget estimates due to
vacancies due to internal promotions within the department and back filling.
Human Resources. Personnel costs are below budget and higher than 2022 due to hiring a new
Human Resources Technician in December 2022. Professional fees are up over the prior year
due to ERP‐related transition costs for upgrading NEOGOV and beginning the setup of UKG
Page 89 of 95
v
time and attendance software. Professional fees are also higher in 2023 due to contract
negotiation renewal discussions.
Police. Personnel services are below budget due to employee vacancies throughout the year.
In 2023 there were four new police officer positions added and a crime analyst. Dakota 911
membership fees increased $85,000 from 2022 and vary each year due to CAD call volume.
Other charges and services were higher than budget due to increase utility costs and increase
in domestic preparedness fees from Dakota County.
Fire. Personnel services are under budget and higher than the prior year due to the addition of
a Fire Inspector in 2023. Firefighter pay is contingent on the number of fire calls during the
year. Commodities are exceeding prior year due to acquisition of wireless headsets (14) in the
first quarter to ensure delivery in 2023.
Engineering/GIS. Personnel services are below budget estimates due to employee vacancies in
the Assistant City Engineer and Civil Engineer positions. This is contributing to the increase in
professional engineering fees needed to complete projects.
Forestry Previously this division was included in the Enterprise Fund Environmental Resources
and has since transitioned to the General Fund as a separate division. Personnel services are
below budget estimates due to employee transition from a vacancy at the end of 2022 and
replaced at a lower rate.
Construction Services. Personnel services are below budget due to position vacancies.
Streets. Personnel services are slightly under budget due to employee transitions and over the
prior year due to increases in overtime cost related to snow events. Commodities are up over
the prior year due to additional chemicals purchased at the end of the 2023/2024 winter
season which will be stored for use in the fall if needed.
Parks. Personnel services are below budget due to employee transitions and higher than the
previous year due to the additional Park Maintenance II position.
Recreation, Heritage Center and Arts Center. Expenses are higher than budget due to employee
transitions and overlap between positions. Arts Center expenses are exceeding the prior year
due to added costs associated with the Art Board Grant awarded in 2023. The Shuttered Venue
grant period expired in 2022.
Page 90 of 95
i
General Fund ‐ Fund Balance
Fund Balance. During the adoption of the 2024 budget, the 2023 unrestricted Fund balance
was projected to be $20,873,739 with a 56% fund balance ratio to current expenditures. The
actual unrestricted fund balance is anticipated to be $22,150,714 – or 61% of current
expenditures. That is a $1.28 million increase resulting from the previous discussions.
The estimated unrestricted fund balance ratio is 54.1% of next year’s budgeted expenditures
which is higher than 40‐50% range established by City policy.
Assigned Fund Balance. The City Council approved the use of $1,528,000 of General Fund
balance as a funding source for the 2024 General Fund Budget.
Page 91 of 95
Unaudited
2023 2023 Variance from Variance from
Adopted Amended 12/31/23 Amended Budget Actual 12/31/22 2022 Actual
Budget Budget Actual Positive (Neg)Percent Actual Positive(Neg)
Revenues
General property taxes 26,954,875$ 26,954,875$ 26,701,304$ (253,571)$ 99.1% 25,488,775$ 1,212,529$
Licenses and permits 2,943,346 3,316,346 3,489,815 173,469 105.2% 3,843,424 (353,609)
Intergovernmental 1,512,699 3,504,175 3,608,385 104,210 103.0% 6,314,319 (2,705,934)
Charges for services 3,392,946 3,717,502 3,453,349 (264,153) 92.9% 3,847,524 (394,175)
Court fines 240,000 240,000 238,097 (1,903) 99.2% 224,461 13,636
Investment income 281,000 281,000 729,681 448,681 259.7% (1,292,356) 2,022,037
Miscellaneous 46,257 46,257 174,210 127,953 376.6%117,361 56,849
Total revenues 35,371,123 38,060,155 38,394,841 334,686 100.9%38,543,508 (148,667)
Expenditures
Mayor and Council 138,778 131,869 125,353 6,516 95.1% 132,295 6,942
Committees and Commissions 127,877 133,622 132,694 928 99.3% 117,501 (15,193)
City Administration 629,559 601,516 591,586 9,930 98.3% 539,024 (52,562)
City Clerk 183,931 198,546 197,360 1,186 99.4% 308,996 111,636
Legal Counsel 97,350 97,350 74,170 23,180 76.2% 79,790 5,620
Planning 662,843 664,256 640,541 23,715 96.4% 623,932 (16,609)
Community and Econ. Development 519,673 521,836 534,834 (12,998) 102.5% 602,385 67,551
Inspections 1,936,637 1,857,140 1,902,352 (45,212) 102.4% 1,835,664 (66,688)
General Government Facilities 684,889 591,083 575,273 15,810 97.3% 621,474 46,201
Finance 1,134,847 1,174,106 1,159,904 14,202 98.8% 1,071,071 (88,833)
Information Systems 1,072,579 857,604 721,101 136,503 84.1% 955,398 234,297
Human Resources 887,396 727,323 663,385 63,938 91.2% 496,840 (166,545)
Insurance 250,000 250,000 250,000 ‐ 100.0% 285,000 35,000
Police 14,311,128 14,448,605 14,436,535 12,070 99.9% 13,241,685 (1,194,850)
Fire 2,666,423 3,067,511 2,884,992 182,519 94.0% 2,446,597 (438,395)
Engineering 1,120,397 906,557 767,475 139,082 84.7% 925,411 157,936
Forestry 566,047 566,379 543,397 22,982 95.9%‐ (543,397)
Construction Services 621,899 701,328 587,436 113,892 83.8% 452,332 (135,104)
Streets 4,064,622 3,989,832 4,018,033 (28,201) 100.7% 3,815,075 (202,958)
Parks 3,470,194 3,498,227 3,382,318 115,909 96.7% 3,055,026 (327,292)
Recreation 847,937 901,685 890,163 11,522 98.7% 888,542 (1,621)
Heritage Center 140,673 141,046 138,933 2,113 98.5% 127,203 (11,730)
Arts Center 763,663 958,594 1,016,290 (57,696) 106.0% 801,732 (214,558)
Total expenditures 36,899,342 36,986,015 36,234,125 751,890 98.0%33,422,973 (2,811,152)
Excess (deficiency) of revenues
over expenditures (1,528,219) 1,074,140 2,160,716 1,086,576 5,120,535 (2,959,819)
Other financing sources (uses)
Transfer from other funds 1,171,099 817,523 372,169 (445,354) 45.5% (1,210,768) 1,582,937
Transfer to other funds (2,353,880) (2,353,880) (2,253,880) 100,000 95.8%(5,453,977) 3,200,097
Total other financing sources (uses) (1,182,781) (1,536,357) (1,881,711) (345,354) (6,664,745) 4,783,034
Net change in fund balance (2,711,000) (462,217) 279,005 741,222 (1,544,210) 1,823,215
Beginning fund balance 21,881,813 22,007,407 22,007,407 ‐ 23,985,822 (1,978,415)
Ending fund balance 19,170,813$ 21,545,190$ 22,286,412$ 741,222$ 22,441,612$ (155,200)$
Adj fund bal, Dec 31 (net of restricte 18,499,362$ 20,873,739$ 22,150,714$ 1,276,975 21,770,162$
Net change in fund balance percenta (12.4%)(2.1%)1.3%(6.4%)
Ratio: Fund Bal to CY expenditures 50.1%56.4%61.1%
Ratio: Fund Bal to NY expenditures 48.7%51.0%54.1%
Expense Summary:
Personnel services 27,622,402 27,308,457 26,665,203 643,254 97.6%25,105,524 (1,559,679)
Commodities 2,211,459 2,266,459 2,362,387 (95,928) 104.2%1,857,318 (505,069)
Other charges and services 6,967,481 7,234,617 7,067,786 166,831 97.7%6,337,977 (729,809)
Capital outlay 98,000 176,482 138,749 37,733 78.6%122,154 (16,595)
36,899,342 36,986,015 36,234,125 751,890 98.0%33,422,973 (2,811,152)
General Fund
Summary Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances
For the Twelve Month Period Ended December 31, 2023
Comparative
Page 92 of 95
Unaudited
General Fund
Schedule of Expenditures
2023 2023 Variance from Variance from
Adopted Amended 12/31/23 Amended Budget Actual 12/31/22 2022 Actual
Expenditures Budget Budget Actual Positive (Neg)Percent Actual Positive(Neg)
Mayor and Council
Personnel services 62,561$ 55,652$ 51,908$ 3,744$ 93% 60,166$ 8,258$
Commodities 50 50 140 (90) 280% 57 (83)
Other charges and services 76,167 76,167 73,305 2,862 96%72,072 (1,233)
Total 138,778 131,869 125,353 6,516 95%132,295 6,942
Committees/Commissions
Personnel services 77,677 78,562 76,375 2,187 97% 70,470 (5,905)
Commodities 2,500 2,500 94 2,406 4% 1,842 1,748
Other charges and services 47,700 52,560 56,225 (3,665) 107%45,189 (11,036)
Total 127,877 133,622 132,694 928 99%117,501 (15,193)
City Administration
Personnel services 525,250 478,207 477,955 252 100% 470,529 (7,426)
Commodities 4,500 4,500 1,168 3,332 26% 3,401 2,233
Other charges and services 99,809 118,809 110,934 7,875 93% 65,094 (45,840)
Capital outlay ‐ ‐ 1,529 (1,529) 0%‐ (1,529)
Total 629,559 601,516 591,586 9,930 98%539,024 (52,562)
City Clerk
Personnel services 143,506 143,691 143,568 123 100% 262,771 119,203
Commodities 300 300 1,932 (1,632) 644% 1,784 (148)
Other charges and services 40,125 54,555 51,860 2,695 95%44,441 (7,419)
Total 183,931 198,546 197,360 1,186 99%308,996 111,636
Legal Counsel
Other charges and services 97,350 97,350 74,170 23,180 76%79,790 5,620
Planning
Personnel services 643,697 645,110 632,621 12,489 98% 614,358 (18,263)
Commodities 1,901 1,901 1,635 266 86% 2,615 980
Other charges and services 17,245 17,245 6,285 10,960 36%6,959 674
Total 662,843 664,256 640,541 23,715 96%623,932 (16,609)
Community and Economic Development
Personnel services 383,365 383,538 382,254 1,284 100% 441,378 59,124
Commodities 275 275 151 124 55% 495 344
Other charges and services 136,033 138,023 152,429 (14,406) 110%160,512 8,083
Total 519,673 521,836 534,834 (12,998) 102%602,385 67,551
Inspection
Personnel services 1,511,300 1,380,823 1,449,132 (68,309) 105% 1,362,074 (87,058)
Commodities 16,207 16,207 13,486 2,721 83% 20,695 7,209
Other charges and services 347,130 398,110 408,637 (10,527) 103% 367,418 (41,219)
Capital outlay 62,000 62,000 31,097 30,903 50%85,477 54,380
Total 1,936,637 1,857,140 1,902,352 (45,212) 102%1,835,664 (66,688)
(continued)
Comparative
Page 93 of 95
Unaudited
General Fund
Schedule of Expenditures
2023 2023 Variance from Variance from
Adopted Amended 12/31/23 Amended Budget Actual 12/31/22 2022 Actual
Expenditures (continued)Budget Budget Actual Positive (Neg)Percent Actual Positive(Neg)
General Government Facilities
Personnel services 415,602$ 323,926$ 323,114$ 812$ 100% 381,851$ 58,737$
Commodities 22,898 22,898 21,218 1,680 93% 21,164 (54)
Other charges and services 246,389 244,259 230,941 13,318 95%218,459 (12,482)
Total 684,889 591,083 575,273 15,810 97%621,474 46,201
Finance
Personnel services 950,108 1,018,151 1,016,143 2,008 100% 872,760 (143,383)
Commodities 1,400 1,400 2,578 (1,178) 184% 2,451 (127)
Other charges and services 183,339 154,555 139,649 14,906 90% 187,422 47,773
Capital outlay ‐ ‐ 1,534 (1,534) 0%8,438 6,904
Total 1,134,847 1,174,106 1,159,904 14,202 99%1,071,071 (88,833)
Information Technology
Personnel services 555,347 340,372 309,465 30,907 91% 524,798 215,333
Commodities 3,800 3,800 2,903 897 76% 5,128 2,225
Other charges and services 513,432 513,432 407,134 106,298 79% 425,472 18,338
Capital outlay ‐ ‐ 1,599 (1,599) 0%‐ (1,599)
Total 1,072,579 857,604 721,101 136,503 84%955,398 234,297
Human Resources
Personnel services 716,626 499,013 442,183 56,830 89% 353,758 (88,425)
Commodities 1,975 1,975 1,734 241 88% 1,271 (463)
Other charges and services 168,795 226,335 219,468 6,867 97% 133,634 (85,834)
Capital outlay ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0%8,177 8,177
Total 887,396 727,323 663,385 63,938 91%496,840 (166,545)
Insurance
Other charges and services 250,000 250,000 250,000 ‐ 100%285,000 35,000
Police
Personnel services 11,628,936 11,766,413 11,731,229 35,184 100% 10,784,534 (946,695)
Commodities 497,057 497,057 485,699 11,358 98% 380,271 (105,428)
Other charges and services 2,185,135 2,185,135 2,219,607 (34,472) 102% 2,076,880 (142,727)
Capital outlay ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0%‐ ‐
Total 14,311,128 14,448,605 14,436,535 12,070 100%13,241,685 (1,194,850)
Fire
Personnel services 1,574,572 1,912,660 1,654,580 258,080 87% 1,477,131 (177,449)
Fire Relief Contribution/State Aid 521,700 584,700 577,878 6,822 99% 513,676 (64,202)
Commodities 225,645 225,645 283,890 (58,245) 126% 142,116 (141,774)
Other charges and services 344,506 344,506 368,644 (24,138) 107%313,674 (54,970)
Total 2,666,423 3,067,511 2,884,992 182,519 94%2,446,597 (438,395)
(continued)
Comparative
Page 94 of 95
Unaudited
General Fund
Schedule of Expenditures
2023 2023 Variance from Variance from
Adopted Amended 12/31/23 Amended Budget Actual 12/31/22 2022 Actual
Expenditures (continued)Budget Budget Actual Positive (Neg)Percent Actual Positive(Neg)
Engineering
Personnel services 951,500$ 737,660$ 628,373$ 109,287$ 85% 802,263$ 173,890$
Commodities 8,786 8,786 6,665 2,121 76% 5,917 (748)
Other charges and services 160,111 160,111 132,437 27,674 83% 97,169 (35,268)
Capital outlay ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0%20,062 20,062
Total 1,120,397 906,557 767,475 139,082 85%925,411 157,936
Forestry
Personnel services 218,114 218,446 212,436$ 6,010$ 97%‐$ (212,436)$
Commodities 7,593 7,593 7,356 237 97%‐ (7,356)
Other charges and services 340,340 340,340 323,610 16,730 95%‐ (323,610)
Capital outlay ‐ ‐ (5) 5 0%‐ 5
Total 566,047 566,379 543,397 22,982 ‐ (543,397)
Construction Services
Personnel services 591,652 592,599 485,491 107,108 82% 415,312 (70,179)
Commodities 12,141 12,141 7,856 4,285 65% 8,433 577
Other charges and services 18,106 18,106 15,608 2,498 86% 28,587 12,979
Capital outlay ‐ 78,482 78,481 1 100%‐ (78,481)
Total 621,899 701,328 587,436 113,892 84%452,332 (135,104)
Streets
Personnel services 2,644,947 2,570,157 2,532,081 38,076 99% 2,507,579 (24,502)
Commodities 993,915 993,915 1,018,402 (24,487) 102% 895,540 (122,862)
Other charges and services 425,760 425,760 467,550 (41,790) 110%411,956 (55,594)
Total 4,064,622 3,989,832 4,018,033 (28,201) 101%3,815,075 (202,958)
Parks
Personnel services 2,500,425 2,528,458 2,454,874 73,584 97% 2,185,343 (269,531)
Commodities 324,472 324,472 319,432 5,040 98% 274,667 (44,765)
Other charges and services 645,297 645,297 608,012 37,285 94%595,016 (12,996)
Total 3,470,194 3,498,227 3,382,318 115,909 97%3,055,026 (327,292)
Recreation
Personnel services 501,101 502,599 503,709 (1,110) 100% 505,102 1,393
Commodities 31,844 31,844 34,461 (2,617) 108% 31,298 (3,163)
Other charges and services 314,992 367,242 351,993 15,249 96% 352,142 149
Capital outlay ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0%‐ ‐
Total 847,937 901,685 890,163 11,522 99%888,542 (1,621)
Heritage Center
Personnel services 76,804 77,177 73,107 4,070 95% 72,185 (922)
Commodities 11,850 11,850 11,769 81 99% 8,745 (3,024)
Other charges and services 52,019 52,019 54,057 (2,038) 104%46,273 (7,784)
Total 140,673 141,046 138,933 2,113 99%127,203 (11,730)
Arts Center
Personnel services 427,612 470,543 506,727 (36,184) 108% 427,486 (79,241)
Commodities 42,350 97,350 139,818 (42,468) 144% 49,428 (90,390)
Other charges and services 257,701 354,701 345,231 9,470 97% 324,818 (20,413)
Capital outlay 36,000 36,000 24,514 11,486 68%‐ (24,514)
Total 763,663 958,594 1,016,290 (57,696) 106%801,732 (214,558)
Comparative
Page 95 of 95