2018.02.05 Work Session Packet (1st)
4141 Douglas Drive North • Crystal, Minnesota 55422-1696
Tel: (763) 531-1000 • Fax: (763) 531-1188 • www.crystalmn.gov
Posted: Feb. 2, 2018
City Council
First Work Session Agenda
Feb. 5, 2018
6:15 p.m.
Conference Room A
Pursuant to due call and notice given in the manner prescribed by Section 3.01 of the City Charter,
the first work session of the Crystal City Council was held at ______ p.m. on Feb. 5, 2018 in
Conference Room A, 4141 Douglas Dr. N., Crystal, Minnesota.
I. Attendance
Council Members Staff
____ Dahl ____ Norris
____ Deshler ____ Therres
____ Kolb ____ Gilchrist
____ LaRoche ____ McGann
____ Parsons ____ Ray
____ Adams ____ Revering
____ Budziszewski ____ Sutter
____ Serres
II. Agenda
The purpose of the work session is to discuss the following agenda item:
1. Finance update including capital funds and long range planning.
III. Adjournment
The work session adjourned at ______ p.m.
Auxiliary aids are available upon request to individuals with disabilities by calling the City Clerk at (763) 531-
1145 at least 96 hours in advance. TTY users may call Minnesota Relay at 711 or 1-800-627-3529.
Memorandum
DATE: February 5, 2018
TO: Mayor and City Council
Anne Norris, City Manager
FROM: Jean McGann, AEM Financial Solutions, LLC
SUBJECT: Finance Update
Background
There are many activities happening in the Finance Department and we would like to update the City Council and request
your input/guidance. Some of the projects are outcomes of the 2018 budget discussion and others are initiatives to
improve operational efficiencies and effectiveness.
Budget
Each year the City prepares an annual budget. As we move forward, we would like to introduce the idea of preparing a
two-year budget. With a two-year budget, the financial plan is laid out in year one for the next two years. During the
second year of the two-year budget, an overview of the second year budget is completed and adjustments are made only
if significantly material. These adjustments may be due to a legislative change or a substantial shift in Council priorities
and/or service levels.
Typically when a two-year budget is prepared, the second year is used to focus on Long-term planning. For many years
the City has prepared a 5-year CIP. As discussed during the 2018 budget process, the Council and staff would like to
have a more strategic approach taken to long-term planning and operations. During the budget process we discussed
implementing the following funds by segregating the PIR fund and consolidating street funds.
• IT Internal Service Fund
• Building Internal Service Fund
• Fleet Internal Service Fund
• Park Capital Improvement Fund
• Street Capital Project Fund (consolidation of the Street Construction Fund and Street Maintenance Fund)
By segregating these funds, long-term planning is simplified by the fact that reserve levels are more readily known and the
future cash flow needs are more apparent. An example of what a long-term plan looks like is included in your packet.
Biennial budgeting
Biennial budgeting is beneficial in that it allows the City to plan towards the future and connect the long-term plan with the
budget. It can have the added benefit of leveling out any projected tax increases by planning for more than one year at a
time. The risk a City takes when doing biannual budgeting is there may be legislative changes such as levy limits or
reductions in local government aid. There are other risks as well such as increases in employer PERA contributions that
are not anticipated at the time the first year of the two year budget is developed. These risks can be reduced by having a
clear policy as to how the biennial budget process works. For example, it is a requirement, regardless if a one or two year
budget is prepared, that the property tax levy is approved and certified on an annual basis. If there is a legislative or
priority change, the Council still has the ability to modify the first or second year budget.
A list of Biennial budget considerations is included in your packet.
Long-term planning
Establishing a long-term plan is different from creating a capital improvement program in that the long-term plan identifies
what is achievable within expected available resources and projects financing strategies with expected project
requirements all while sustaining the financial health of the city. When creating a long-term plan the following factors
should be considered;
• Focus on identifying long-term capital needs throughout the City
• Anticipate expected revenue and expenditure trends including their relationship to multi-year financial plans
and ongoing impacts to the operating budget due to the capital plan
• Prepare cash flow projections of the amount and timing of the capital financing
• Continue compliance with all established financial policies
• Recognize appropriate legal constraints
• Consider and estimate funding amounts from all appropriate funding alternatives
• Consider sources and uses for debt service
• Ensure reliability and stability of identified funding sources
• Evaluate the affordability of the financing strategy, including the impact on debt ratios, applicable tax rates,
and/or service fees
Establishment and Consolidation of Funds
As noted above, the Council has discussed the establishment of specific Internal Services Funds and Capital Project
Fund as well as the consolidation of the Street Maintenance and Street Construction Funds. If Council is in agreement, a
resolution will be brought to the City Council in March segregating the funds retroactive to January 1, 2018. The
segregation of the PIR fund will be presented as outlined below. In addition, the Street Construction and Street
Maintenance Funds will be combined.
Local Government Aid
In the final 2018 budget there was an allocation adjustment to remove Local Government Aid (LGA) from the General
Fund and place it in the PIR Capital Project Fund. As we move into the preparation of the 2019 budget we will continue
work towards non-reliance on state aids for general operations.
Financial Policies
As the City works towards planning for the future it is always a good idea to review financial policies. We are proposing to
do a review and update of the City Financial Policies and develop this into an overall Financial Management Plan by the
end of June. The policies we are proposing to review and/or either update/establish are as follows;
• Cash and Investments – addresses cash reserves, cash policies and procedures and investment policy
• Fund Reserves – outlines policies for each fund type and addresses fund balance reserve
• Operating Budget and Compensation Philosophy – outlines process and procedure, defines funds budgets that
will be established and addresses compensation components.
• Capital Improvement Plans/Capital Assets – defines what a capital improvement plan is and how the program is
managed as well as sets parameters and definitions for capital assets.
• Debt Management – outlines how and when debt will be used and what it will be used for. Puts in place a formal
mechanism for annual review of debt and capital needs.
• Special Assessment – outlines how and when local improvements will be charged to property owners.
• Conduit Debt – defines what conduit debt is, how it can be used, processes and procedures for use and when it
should not be used.
• Risk Management - provides for risk management policy
• Economic Development Authority – incorporates all economic development policies
• Revenue Management – outlines revenue sources, uses and objectives
• Accounting, Auditing, Budget and Financial Reporting – provides guidance in all areas
Electronic Workflow Implementation
During the first quarter of this year we are working on implementation of an electronic workflow for all invoices that are
paid by the City. By moving forward with this implementation the City will be scanning invoices received by mail and
distributing to the responsible parties electronically. If invoices are received by email, they will be integrated with the
electronic workflow system and also distributed electronically. The responsible approver will be providing both coding and
authorization electronically. This information is then electronically routed to finance, reviewed and updated into the
financial system. In addition, this allows the City to maintain electronic records rather than paper copies and will
eventually reduce the space necessary for records retention.
Lastly, as an added benefit, users of the financial system will be able drill down and see the actual invoice that was paid in
the financial system.
There are several phases to this project which we will work on in conjunction with LOGIS. We anticipate this system
going live by the end of April.
Initial Assessment
The first step to this project was to review and analyze data provided by the City. After this review, City Project Team
members, LOGIS and AEMFS met discuss overall anticipated project expectations, outcomes and timelines.
Purchasing Policy and Approval Levels
To have a successful implementation we have developed a purchasing policy that identifies purchasing authority and is
consistent throughout the City. In addition, it provides guidance based on Minnesota legal compliance as well as internal
policy. The workflow is then developed based on this policy. The draft policy is included with this packet. If the Council is
comfortable with the policy we will bring it forward for formal approval.
Testing, Implementation and Training
Testing of the workflow process will be completed before the final implementation and go live date. This is a collaborative
effort with LOGIS. We want to be certain the workflow system flow smoothly, processes are documented and
implementation is completed. Once testing is complete, there will be a series of training sessions to ensure all staff
responsible for using the system are comfortable, they have standard operating procedures and a resource to assist when
they have issues.
Purchasing Cards
We have been working with Wells Fargo to review all services currently being received and exploring additional service
options. While there are several service areas we are reviewing, we would like to move forward with securing purchasing
cards for appropriate city staff members.
The program offered through Wells Fargo allows for a rebate back to the City. Wells Fargo is estimating this amount to be
approximately $15,000 and of course, is based on the level of purchases made with the card. By moving to purchasing
cards, the City will be able to eliminate the use of credit cards, the majority of “house accounts” as well as other vendor
cards. The advantage of this is the ability to strengthen the internal controls of the city by controlling the type, amount and
location of purchases based on the individual user.
Sewer - Senior discounts
The City currently provides for a senior discount on utility rates. This senior discount is applied to both homeowners and
renters. In total, the senior rebate costs the city approximately $7,500 per year. Based on how the program works, city
staff must recertify renters on an annual basis. Once a homeowner is certified, there is no need to recertify unless there is
a change of ownership.
Homeowners are required to submit paperwork to apply for the discount. One challenge with homeowners is the city may
not know if the senior homeowner has moved or is deceased and the remaining homeowner is not a senior. For renters,
the city reviews the CRP and renters identification year to ensure renters are eligible for the senior discount. Overall, the
administration of this program is extremely time consuming. The rebate itself equates to about $35 per renter. Staff
would like to discuss the cost vs. benefit of this program.
AEM vs. In-House staffing analysis
AEM Financial Solutions has been working with the City of Crystal since the end of November 2016. Over this past year
the City has incurred costs associated with out-sourcing as well as several special projects due to staff changes and
process improvements. The comparative analysis below outlines the cost of AEM Financial Services to staffing the
Finance Department internally.
Conclusion
The City Council is requested to review and provide input/direction.
Biennual budgeting considerations
Rationale for Biennual budgeting
• Greater emphasis on management and service delivery
• Greater emphasis on program evaluation and monitoring
• Improved long-term planning;
• Redeployment of human resources to activities other than budget preparation
• Reduction in staff time spent on budget development
Why consider Biennual
• Improve financial management
• Improve long-range and strategic planning
• Improve program monitoring and evaluation
• Link operating and capital activities and spending
• Reallocate and redeploy staff to other functions and activities
• Reduce ‘‘opportunism’’ to increase department, division, and/or unit budget appropriations from
year to year
• Reduce staff time dedicated to budget development
Disadvantages
• Unstable local economy may present difficulties in forecasting revenues and expenditures
• Projecting expenditures and revenues may be difficult for some departments/divisions
• Budget process may need to incorporate new policies and processes
• The multi-year budget may not take into account ongoing economic and environmental changes
How to be successful with Biennual budgeting
• Amend existing financial and budget policies and procedures
• Assess the local economic environment by examining key economic and fiscal indicators
• Conduct an analysis of the existing revenue structure
• Update the budget manual to reflect the changes in the budget processes
• Document and specify the underlying economic assumptions
• Effectively communicate the need for a multi-year budget with key stakeholders
• Establish a budget review process for ensuring compliance with budget polices, processes, and
targets
• Link the multi-year budget with the strategic plan, long-range financial plan and revenue forecast,
and financial and budgetary policies
City of Crystal, Minnesota
Purchasing Policy
Adopted by City Council on: __________________________
1. Policy
The budget allocates funds for the purchase of personnel, supplies, other services and capital. Requests cannot be made
for items outside the budget except under special circumstances. These special circumstances will have to be approved
by the City Manager. The Purchasing Agent is the City Manager. Purchases less than $500 may be purchased by
authorized staff members; $2,500 may be purchased by Supervisors; $15,000 may be purchased by Department
Directors; purchases up to $25,000 may be approved by the City Manager (without Council approval); and purchases
exceeding $25,000 must be approved by the City Council with the following exceptions;
Professional services – the City is not required to use the competitive bidding process when contracting for professional
services, such as those of engineers, lawyers, architects, and accountants as well as other services requiring technical or
professional training like refuse hauling and janitorial services.
Insurance contracts – the City is not required to use the competitive bidding process for insurance contracts however; the
City must seek requests for proposals for group insurance.
2. Organization Affected
All Departments
City of Crystal, Minnesota
3. Procedure
A. Purchase & Bidding Requirements:
Amount of
Purchase:
Type of quote
required:
Approval
required
by:
Written bid
specifications:
Sealed
bids
required:
Contract
required:
Purchase order
required:
Purchases under
$500
None None not required no no no
Purchases under
$2,500
two telephone
quotes are
preferred
Supervisor not required no no no
Purchases
between $2,500-
$15,000
two written
quotes required
unless special
circumstances
are noted
Dept.
Director
as required
based on type
of purchase
no no no
Purchases over
$15,000 up to
$25,000
three written
quotes required
unless special
circumstances
are noted
City
Manager
as required
based on type
of purchase
no no no
Purchases over
$25,000 up to
$100,000
three written
quotes required
unless special
circumstances
are noted;
consult
cooperative
purchasing
programs
City
Council
as required
based on type
of purchase
no construction
projects yes;
commodities
at discretion
of City
Manager
no
Purchases
greater than
$100,000
City Clerk must
advertise in City’s
legal newspaper
City
Council
required yes yes no
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Purchases – see next page
City of Crystal, Minnesota
B. Guaranteed Energy Savings Agreements:
State Statues authorize the City to enter into a guaranteed energy savings agreement with a qualified provider for
the purpose of implementing comprehensive utility cost-saving measures to improve the energy efficiency of
various municipal facilities within the City so long as the implementation costs will not exceed the amount to be
saved in utility and maintenance costs over a twenty year period with said utility and maintenance cost savings
guaranteed in writing by the qualified provider. The City shall follow all requirements as prescribed in Statute
related to this authority to enter into Guaranteed Energy Savings Agreements.
C. Responsible Contractor Compliance:
A contractor responding to a solicitation document of a contracting authority shall submit to the contracting
authority a signed statement under oath by an owner or officer verifying compliance with each of the minimum
criteria in subdivision 3 of Minnesota Statute 16C.285, with the exception of clause (7), at the time that it responds
to the solicitation document. A contracting authority may accept a signed statement under oath as sufficient to
demonstrate that a contractor is a responsible contractor and shall not be held liable for awarding a contract in
reasonable reliance on that statement. A prime contractor, subcontractor, or motor carrier that fails to verify
compliance with any one of the required minimum criteria or makes a false statement under oath in a verification
of compliance shall be ineligible to be awarded a construction contract on the project for which the verification
was submitted. A false statement under oath verifying compliance with any of the minimum criteria may result in
termination of a construction contract that has already been awarded to a prime contractor or subcontractor or
motor carrier that submits a false statement. A contracting authority shall not be liable for declining to award a
contract or terminating a contract based on a reasonable determination that contractor failed to verify compliance
with the minimum criteria or falsely stated that it meets the minimum criteria. A verification of compliance need not
be notarized. An electronic verification of compliance made and submitted as part of an electronic bid shall be an
acceptable verification of compliance under this section, provided that it contains an electronic signature as
defined in section 325L.02, paragraph (h) of Minnesota Statues 16C.285.
D. Cooperative Purchasing Contracts:
For contracts estimated to exceed $25,000, a city must consider the availability, price, and quality of supplies,
materials, or equipment available through the state cooperative purchasing venture before buying through
another source.
If the City is not utilizing the state's cooperative purchasing venture, the City may consider another national
municipal association's purchasing alliance or cooperative created by a joint powers agreement that purchases
items from more than one source on the basis of competitive bids or competitive quotations.
City of Crystal, Minnesota
E. Bidding Requirements:
When supplies or equipment are competitive in nature, specifications cannot exclude all but one type of
equipment or supplies. Proposals and specifications must allow free and full competition. Bidding requirements
cannot be avoided by splitting a contract into several contracts, each of which is below the minimum amount
requiring sealed bids. For example, the City cannot purchase $200,000 of lumber in several transactions, each
involving an expenditure of less than $100,000. However, if materials or work logically fall into two separate
contracts because they involve separate transactions, as for the service of contractors specializing in different
kinds of work, there is no reason why the City cannot negotiate the contracts individually without sealed bids if the
bids do not exceed the $100,000 minimum.
o Capital Improvement Program (CIP) purchases – the CIP is not an adopted budget document,
therefore, the expenditure has not been formally authorized. A resolution should be adopted listing the
funding source to give the formal authorization to expend the funds for the equipment purchase.
o Sales tax – Beginning January 1, 2015 purchases made by the City of Crystal are generally exempt. The
general exemption for cities, however, does not apply to purchases made by the City to provide the
following goods and services: golf courses, solid waste, and cafes. Certain other exclusions are listed in
Statute and should be reviewed on a regular basis. Bidders should specify whether their bid includes
sales tax or not. After the work is completed and a purchase order is processed, if the invoice does not
itemize sales tax you must obtain a corrected invoice from the vendor if sales tax is applicable on the item
purchased. The City is not subject to the Hennepin County Sales and Use Tax of 0.15% that went into
effect January 1, 2007.
o Consultant services – state law does not require cities to competitively bid contracts for professional
services (i.e. attorney, architect, engineer, accountant, cleaning company, or other person with technical,
scientific, or professional training such as refuse hauling).
o Sealed bids are required for purchases exceeding $100,000, and bids must be advertised by the City
Clerk in the City's legal newspaper (Notice to Bidders) and publicly opened and approved by Council
resolution. In addition to the legal notice, the City must prepare instructions to bidders and general
specifications for sealed bids. Attaching a copy of the proposed contract to the instructions to bidders is
required. Sealed bids, including the number of bids received prior to bid opening, are nonpublic. Once
opened, the name of the bidder and the dollar amount of the bid are public (all other data is private until
completion of the selection process).
o Bids vs. Quotes terminology – always use term quotation unless referring to a sealed bid.
City of Crystal, Minnesota
o Bid security (for sealed bids for purchases over $100,000) in the amount of five percent (5%) of the bid
shall be submitted to the City Clerk. The bid security guarantees that in the event the bidder’s offer is
accepted, the bidder will enter into a contract in accordance with the proposal. Bid security of the
successful bidder will be returned upon execution of the contract documents. Bid securities of
unsuccessful bidders will be returned within a reasonable time period (Minnesota Statute §574.27).
Failure of the successful bidder to execute the Contract and furnish applicable bonds within ten (10) days
after receiving written notice of the award shall cause the bid security to be forfeited as liquidated
damages to the City. The City Council at this time may award the contract to the next lower competent
bidder unless the Council determines that public interest will be better served by accepting a higher bid,
or the contract may be re-advertised.
As a statutory City, contracts and bids must be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. It should be
noted that the bidder who submits the lowest bid in dollars is not necessarily the "lowest responsible
bidder" and the quoted phrase gives the Council reasonable discretion in choosing among bidders.
Responsibility, in bid statutes, means not only financial responsibility but also integrity, skill, and the
likelihood that the bidder will perform faithful and satisfactory work.
o Rejecting Bids (and related Data Practices laws) - the City has the right to reject any and all bids
(requests for proposals, requests for bids, sealed bids). All data submitted in response to bid requests are
private until bids are opened. If bids are rejected prior to the completion of the evaluation or selection
process, all data, other than that made public at the bid opening, remain private until a re-solicitation of
bids results in completion of the selection process. If the rejection occurs after the completion of the
selection process, the data remain public. If a re-solicitation of bids does not occur within one year of the
bid opening date, the remaining data become public
F. Use of Requisition/Purchase Order Form:
o A purchase order shall not be required by the City. If the vendor requires a purchase order, City staff
may request a purchase order from Finance to provide to the vendor. No additional tracking of the
purchase order throughout the accounts payable transaction cycle is required.
CITY OF SAMPLE, MINNESOTA
2015 - 2020 FINANCIAL PLAN
DATE
Prepared by AEM Financial Solutions, LLP
CLIENT
LOGO
City Of Sample
City of XX, Minnesota
2015 - 2020 Financial Plan
Table Of Contents
Page No.
Introductory Section
Transmittal Letter 4
Financial Section
Schedule of Property Tax Levied and Tax Rates 8
Schedule of Annual Fund Cash Balances 9
Outstanding Debt Schedule 10
Schedule of Debt Transfer by Year and Fund 11
Capital Improvement Plan
Capital Outlay Reserve Fund 275
Schedule of Planned Capital Outlay 2014 to 2020 12
Schedule of Projected Revenue, Expenditures and Debt 2014 to 2020 13
Capital Equipment Pan - Enterprise Funds
Schedule of Planned Capital Outlay 2014 to 2020 14
Selected Graphical Data from Projections 15
INTRODUCTORY SECTION
CITY OF SAMPLE OF, MINNESOTA
2015 - 2020 FINANCIAL PLAN
3
DATE
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Sample
Address
City, MN Zip
Introduction
We have prepared the attached 2015 -2020 Financial Plan for the City of Sample (the City) that is intended to give a big
picture view of the status now and through year 2020. We have scheduled projected tax levy, cash balances, planned
capital and debt for the City based on assumptions by management. We have not examined the projection and do not
express an opinion or any other form of assurance on the accompanying schedules or assumptions. Furthermore, there
will usually be differences between the forecasted and actual results, because events and circumstances frequently do
not occur as expected and those differences may be material. We have no responsibility to update this report for events
and circumstances occurring after the date of this report. The City’s assumptions made are as follows:
Assumptions
1.Normal operating expenses will increase by a three percent inflation rate.
2.Housing growth is assumed at five units per year each with an average market value of $142,700 increasing by 1
percent per year starting in 2015. The City is expected to receive approximately $101,000 from Trunk fees in 2015
related to The Haven assisted living project.
3.Equipment has been identified in the capital plan and is to be expended in the capital fund (275).
4.The general fund tax levy increases to balance the increase in the budget and to sustain a 50 percent reserve
compared to the following years budget.
5.No new debt or new projects are included in the plan through 2020.
6.The 2010B G.O. refunding bond fund has sufficient resources to allow the City to reduce the scheduled levies in
future years. The projection currently has a levy reduction of approximately $145,000 for the 2015 Levy, a
$42,000 reduction for the 2016 levy, and $20,000 reductions the remaining years.
4
Assumptions with Future Action
1.Fund 520 (2013B Bond Fund) - the 2013 levy collectable in 2014 was not certified to the County. Future levies
have been adjusted by an increase of $11K per year to ensure the City has adequate reserves to bond maturity.
2.The City will strive to reduce its reliance on the State’s Local Government Aid (LGA) program, by reducing the
budget for LGA over a 15 year period beginning in year 2016 budget.
3.The first two bonds to mature are the 2013B Infrastructure bonds and the 2008 bonds both of which mature in the
2024. Council will need to decide how to utilize remaining cash in the funds if there is any. Options for the
remaining cash reserves could be transferred to other debt service funds or any other fund.
4. Fund 320 - 2013 Infrastructure fund. There currently is approximately $160K of cash in the fund. Council has
discussed utilizing these funds for future qualifying projects or transferring the remaining funds into the related
debt service fund 520 - 2013B Infrastructure fund.
5. The Special Capital Projects fund has been used to keep the General Fund’s fund balance at 35 percent of the
following year’s budget. The fund was established to provide resources to help offset infrastructure projects.
Management proposes to close the fund and transfer the funds to pay off the interfund loan to the W ater fund and
transfer remaining balance to the General fund. This will help build the General Fund’s cash balance reserve
percentage compared to the following year’s budget. The entire sale proceeds of the industrial park land would
then be used to pay back the General fund.
6.Annually the plan will be updated with actual amounts adjusted to agree to the annual audited financial
statements. The updated plan will be utilized as part of preparing the annual budget.
Key Highlights
1.The General fund builds on the reserve throughout the life of the projection with the assumptions of increasing levy
to build the General fund balance reserve, while decreasing the City’s reliance on local government aid. The City
will also maintain debt service reserve balances to meet the required principal and interest payments.
2.The General fund proposed operating tax levy increases approximately 4.3 percent in 2015 from 2014. The debt
service levy increases 1.1 percent from 2014 and the City increased the capital levy to $110,056. The overall
proposed levy increase is 8.7 percent. The projection incorporates these proposed amounts.
3.The Storm Water special revenue fund is currently at a $200K cash deficit that is not projected to correct itself in
the six year period.
4.Fund 275 - Capital Fund - the capital fund currently is funded by transfers in from the General fund through levies.
Staff has proposed a tax levy for 2015 of $110,056 to fund future capital purchases. The projection includes future
levies to continue to this fund. The fund cash increases over the 6 year projection period. This fund will be
analyzed each year as part of the budget process.
5.Fund 401 - Special Capital Projects fund has approximately $330K of cash reserves in it. As mentioned above,
this fund was established to provide a source of funding for infrastructure improvements. Management has
recommended this fund be closed as noted above in the assumptions section.
6.The Sewer and Storm Water funds currently do not have funds set aside to pay for capital related purchases.
Using the current increases included in the rate study, neither of the funds will have funds set aside throughout the
projection period. This is based on first meeting the operating cash reserve goal and determining the amount in
excess of that balance. The financial goal is shown as the third bullet in the financial goals
section.
5
Financial Goals
•Reach a 50 percent cash reserve in the General fund. The 50 percent balance will fund half of the budget
through June of each year until the 1st half tax settlement is received from the County.
•Maintain positive resources in the City’s debt service funds throughout the life of the bonds.
•Ensure enterprise funds (Water & Sewer) reach an operating cash balance that is equal or above 50 percent of
the annual operating expenses plus 100 percent of debt service requirements. In addition to the operating cash
balance, a cash balance established to fund future capital purchases based on the capital needs of the fund.
•Build and maintain capital resources to fund the capital improvement/equipment replacement plan.
•Reduce the City reliance on local government aid over a 15 year period.
•Build and maintain positive cash balances in all City funds.
•Annually determine whether or not there are available resources in the Water fund that can be used to improve
the cash position of the Sewer fund.
•Incorporate an infrastructure improvement plan into the long range plan focusing on planning projects to fit the
debt management goals of the City. Council has created the following list of important projects that will be
addressed in future years:
•Street/Infrastructure improvements
a.Main and Oak Streets Reconstruction
b.2nd Avenue Improvements/relocate main lift station
c.Mill and overlay project, phase II
•Capital Equipment Fund
a.Proactive vs. Reactive budgeting
•Pavilion
a.Structural integrity improvements
•Image and Appearance of the City
a.Public Facilities/Property - clean-up
b.New community entrance signs, Faxon road banners & decorative lighting poles
•Replace South Fire Station
6
FINANCIAL SECTION
CITY OF SAMPLE OF , MINNESOTA
2015 - 2020 FINANCIAL PLAN
7
City of Sample, Minnesota
Schedule of Property Taxes Levied and Tax Rates
For the Years Ended December 31, 2013-2014 Actual and 2015 To 2020 Estimated
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Actual Actual Preliminary Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated
Amounts Amounts Amounts Amounts Amounts Amounts Amounts Amounts
Property Taxes Levied for General Purposes
101 General Fund 836,694$ 891,741$ 930,445$ 1,051,248$ 1,103,335$ 1,156,562$ 1,225,971$ 1,312,978$
Additional levy for General fund to increase reserve balance - - - 65,000 65,000 65,000 50,000 50,000
Total General Fund operating levy 836,694 891,741 930,445 1,116,248 1,168,335 1,221,562 1,275,971 1,362,978
Property Taxes Levied for Debt Service
501 35,035 34,578 33,910 33,003 37,466 36,327 35,187 34,048
515 36,762 - - - - - - -
516 86,527 89,099 91,325 88,112 89,792 91,262 95,522 88,322
517 206,899 199,793 197,905 196,013 199,373 202,628 200,528 198,428
518 217,354 315,360 161,102 257,262 318,357 316,729 314,787 317,778
519 73,383 104,901 103,792 103,777 105,758 102,654 103,587 110,030
520 - - 164,121 160,971 163,071 159,816 161,811 156,771
601 18,600 19,215 19,215 18,427 17,955 17,482 22,260 21,630
- - - - 13,800 27,600 27,600 27,600
N/A - - - - - - - -
2010 infrastructure Debt Service
Industrial Park Debt Service
2008 Debt Service
2012 Debt Service
G.O refunding Debt Service
2011A G.O refunding Debt Service
2013B infrastructure Debt Service
Water fund 2010B G.O. refunding
Potential levies for equipment certificate
Matured bond series
Subtotal 674,560 762,946 771,370 857,565 945,572 954,497 961,282 954,607
Property Taxes Levied for Capital Replacement Fund
275 Capital outlay reserve fund - 11,695 110,056 75,000 110,000 152,000 175,000 200,000
Total taxes levied 1,511,254$ 1,666,382$ 1,811,871$ 2,048,813$ 2,223,906$ 2,328,059$ 2,412,253$ 2,517,585$
Operational percent increase (decrease in levy)6.6%4.3%20.0%4.7%4.6%4.5%6.8%
Debt percent increase (decrease in levy)13.1%1.1%11.2%10.3%0.9%0.7%-0.7%
Capital percent increase (decrease in levy)100.0%841.1%-31.9%46.7%38.2%15.1%14.3%
Total percent increase (decrease in levy)10.3%8.7%13.1%8.5%4.7%3.6%4.4%
Tax Capacity
Personal and real estate - Carver County 2,131,874 2,131,874 2,586,759 2,664,361 2,744,292 2,826,621 2,911,419 2,998,762
Total tax capacity from the county 2,131,874 2,131,874 2,536,987 2,664,361 2,744,292 2,826,621 2,911,419 2,998,762
Assumed new growth (5 homes each year)14,484 21,835 29,333 36,981 44,782
Assumed commercial growth ($1m MV = $10K in TC)16,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Less: contribution to fiscal disparities (286,240) (286,240) (290,521) (299,237) (308,214) (317,460) (326,984) (336,793)
Less: tax increment (36,357) (36,357) (51,138) (52,672) (54,252) (55,880) (57,556) (59,283)
Adjusted tax capacity used for local rate 1,809,277 1,809,277 2,195,328 2,342,936 2,408,661 2,487,614 2,568,860 2,652,468
Add: distribution from fiscal disparities 337,300 337,300 430,356 430,356 430,356 430,356 430,356 430,356
Adjusted net tax capacity 2,146,577$ 2,146,577$ 2,625,684$ 2,773,292$ 2,839,017$ 2,917,970$ 2,999,216$ 3,082,824$
Tax Rates
General 35.27%34.76%32.32%37.64%39.12%40.03%40.81%44.61%
Scheduled debt levies 27.05%29.35%26.79%28.91%31.20%30.37%29.86%30.34%
Scheduled capital levies 0.00%0.00%3.82%2.53%3.68%4.98%5.60%6.55%
Proposed additional debt levies 0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.46%0.90%0.88%0.90%
Total direct tax rate (factors fiscal disparities not reflected in tax capacity)62.31%64.11%62.93%69.08%74.46%76.29%77.15%82.40%
Population 3,608 3,608 3,621 3,633 3,646 3,658 3,671 3,683
Taxes per capita 419$ 462$ 500$ 564$ 610$ 636$ 657$ 684$
Median home value (Jan 2)142,700$ 142,700$ 144,127$ 145,568$ 147,024$ 149,964$ 152,963$ 156,022$
Median home taxes (from city)737 758 754 839 916 963 999 1,094
Percent change from prior year dollars 2.88%-0.55%11.21%9.20%5.12%3.75%9.55%
Tax capacity growth rates 0.00%21.34%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%3.00%
8
City of Sample, Minnesota
Schedule of Annual Fund Cash Balances
For the Years Ended December 31, 2013 Actual and 2014 To 2020 Projected
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Actual Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated
Amounts Amounts Amounts Amounts Amounts Amounts Amounts Amounts Trend
Government-Type
General Operations
101 General 598,979$ 693,264$ 698,270$ 763,270$ 828,270$ 893,270$ 943,270$ 993,270$ 3$
Cash balance as a percent of the following years budget 35%40%41%44%47%48%49%
Special Revenue
201 Park Dedication 87,024$ 87,894$ 88,773$ 89,661$ 90,558$ 91,463$ 92,378$ 93,302$ 2$
Prev 603 Storm Sewer N/A (233,726) (262,010) (254,099) (242,235) (226,172) (206,194) (182,006) 1$
Subtotal 87,024 (145,832) (173,237) (164,438) (151,677) (134,709) (113,817) (88,705)
Debt Service
53,787$ 54,374$ 54,266$ 54,714$ 60,373$ 60,860$ 61,290$ 61,663$ 2$
310,656 313,034 313,034 310,134 312,115 314,085 319,036 315,735 2$
218,081 269,866 275,721 288,323 306,211 324,383 337,587 350,823 2$
987,308 942,065 835,498 769,248 765,155 756,510 748,342 745,906 2$
313,611 324,765 335,522 346,757 358,024 369,317 380,627 402,448 2$
501 2010 Infrastructure Debt Service
516 2008 Debt Service
517 2012 Debt Service
518 G.O Refunding Debt Service
519 2011A G.O Refunding Debt Service
520 2013B Infrastructure Debt Service 48,732 53,444 78,865 94,516 115,424 131,336 152,501 167,789 2$
Subtotal 1,932,175 1,957,547 1,892,905 1,863,692 1,917,303 1,956,491 1,999,384 2,044,364
Capital Projects
225 Economic Recovery 133,233$ 134,565$ 135,911$ 137,270$ 138,643$ 140,029$ 141,430$ 142,844$ 3$
275 Capital Fund 435,846 435,956 410,512 261,718 161,335 314,948 466,098 471,349 2$
320 2013 Infrastructure 230,129 160,000 160,000 161,600 163,216 164,848 166,497 168,162 2$
401 Special Capital Projects 329,085 - - - - - - - 2$
420 TIF 2-1 5,369 4,990 4,607 4,220 3,829 3,434 3,035 2,633 2$
421 TIF 3-1 240 (142) 7,659 8,375 8,612 8,356 7,591 6,303 2$
422 TIF 3-2 7,761 9,352 8,086 8,718 9,067 9,125 8,882 8,331 2$
423 TIF 3-3 - - 7,900 7,979 8,059 8,139 8,221 8,303 2$
424 TIF 3-4 - - - - - - - - 2$
425 TIF 1-5 - - - - - - - - 2$
Subtotal 1,141,663 744,722 734,675 589,879 492,760 648,880 801,754 807,924
Total - Governmental-type Funds 3,759,841$ 3,249,700$ 3,152,613$ 3,052,402$ 3,086,655$ 3,363,932$ 3,630,590$ 3,756,853$
Business-Type
Enterprise Funds
601 Water 596,257$ 787,447$ 756,540$ 757,511$ 836,285$ 945,044$ 1,070,158$ 1,236,812$ 3 $
602 Sewer 41,404 90,238 76,284 73,440 121,063 198,900 227,321 235,027 1$
679,221 761,479 856,793 971,121 1,100,499 1,246,041 1,413,993 1,600,414 3$ 251 Assisted Living
603 Storm Water (233,726) - - - - - - -
Total - Business-type Funds 637,661$ 877,685$ 832,824$ 830,952$ 957,348$ 1,143,944$ 1,297,479$ 1,471,839$
Total Cash Reserves - All City Funds 4,397,502$ 4,127,385$ 3,985,437$ 3,883,354$ 4,044,004$ 4,507,876$ 4,928,069$ 5,228,692$
- Cash balance trending positively
- Cash balance trending at break even
- Cash balance trending negatively and should be addressed
9
City of Sample, Minnesota
Outstanding Debt Schedule
For the Years Ended December 31, 2013 Actual and 2014 To 2020 Projected
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Original Issue Maturity Call Interest Actual Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated
Fund Issue Issue Date Date Date Rate Balance Balance Balance Balance Balance Balance Balance Balance
Enterprise Fund Debt
Water Fund
601 Water 2012A (refunded 2003A bonds)1,430,625$ 3/14/2012 2/1/2024 2/1/2021 .40 - 2.00 %1,430,625$ 1,312,500$ 1,194,375$ 1,072,500$ 948,750$ 823,125$ 695,625$ 566,250$
601 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2011A 245,000 9/15/2011 2/1/2032 2/1/2020 3.00 - 3.75 235,000 220,000 205,000 190,000 175,000 160,000 145,000 130,000
601 GO Water Revenue Bonds 2008B 2,715,000 10/30/2008 2/1/2029 2/1/2018 3.75 - 5.00 2,495,000 2,380,000 2,260,000 2,135,000 2,010,000 1,880,000 1,745,000 1,600,000
601 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2010A 120,000 8/4/2010 2/1/2026 2/1/2018 1.45 - 3.65 115,000 110,000 105,000 100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000
601 General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2010B 255,000 12/7/2010 2/1/2021 2/1/2019 2.00 - 3.00 225,000 200,000 175,000 150,000 125,000 100,000 70,000 35,000
601 (PFA) GO Water Revenue Note, Series 2010 1,966,604 11/24/2010 8/20/2039 2.461 1,816,000 1,765,000 1,713,000 1,660,000 1,606,000 1,550,000 1,493,000 1,434,000
6,316,625 5,987,500 5,652,375 5,307,500 4,954,750 4,593,125 4,218,625 3,825,250
Sewer Fund
602 Sewer 2012A (refunded 2003A bonds)2,384,375$ 3/14/2012 2/1/2024 2/1/2021 .40 - 2.0 %2,384,375$ 2,187,500$ 1,990,625$ 1,787,500$ 1,581,250$ 1,371,875$ 1,159,375$ 943,750$
602 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2011A 110,000 9/15/2011 2/1/2032 2/1/2020 3.00 - 3.75 105,000 100,000 95,000 90,000 85,000 80,000 75,000 70,000
602 GO Bonds 2013B 130,000 9/12/2013 2/1/2024 2/1/2021 2.0 - 3.0 130,000 130,000 120,000 110,000 100,000 90,000 75,000 60,000
2,619,375 2,417,500 2,205,625 1,987,500 1,766,250 1,541,875 1,309,375 1,073,750
Assisted Living Debt
251 2012A Housing Gross Revenue Refunding Bonds 3,090,000$ 12/01/2012 8/1/2031 8/1/2021 2.70 - 3.10 %3,015,000$ 2,870,000$ 2,720,000$ 2,570,000$ 2,415,000$ 2,255,000$ 2,095,000$ 1,930,000$
251 2012B G.O Housing Revenue Refunding Bonds 3,000,000 12/01/2012 8/1/2040 8/1/2021 1.00 - 4.30 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000
6,015,000 5,870,000 5,720,000 5,570,000 5,415,000 5,255,000 5,095,000 4,930,000
TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUND DEBT 14,951,000 14,275,000 13,578,000 12,865,000 12,136,000 11,390,000 10,623,000 9,829,000
Government-Type
G.O. Improvement Bonds
535,000$ 08/04/2010 2/1/2026 2/1/2018 1.45 - 3.65 %475,000$ 445,000$ 415,000$ 385,000$ 355,000$ 320,000$ 285,000$ 250,000$
65,000 8/4/2010 2/1/2026 2/1/2018 1.45 - 3.65 65,000 60,000 55,000 50,000 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000
1,325,000 07/02/2008 2/1/2024 2/1/2017 3.00 - 4.10 1,040,000 965,000 885,000 800,000 715,000 625,000 530,000 430,000
1,420,000 11/05/2009 2/1/2039 2/1/2020 6.00 - 6.15 1,420,000 1,420,000 1,420,000 1,420,000 1,420,000 1,420,000 1,420,000 1,420,000
1,920,000 06/20/2013 2/1/2031 2/1/2022 2.0 - 3.25 1,920,000 1,875,000 1,785,000 1,695,000 1,605,000 1,510,000 1,410,000 1,310,000
5,560,000 12/07/2010 2/1/2027 2/1/2019 2.00 - 3.63 5,560,000 5,215,000 4,865,000 4,505,000 4,135,000 3,750,000 3,355,000 2,950,000
2,770,000 09/15/2011 2/1/2032 2/1/2020 3.00 - 3.75 2,630,000 2,480,000 2,325,000 2,165,000 2,000,000 1,830,000 1,655,000 1,475,000
125,000 9/15/2011 2/1/2032 2/1/2020 3.00 - 3.75 120,000 115,000 110,000 105,000 100,000 95,000 90,000 85,000
501 2010 Infrastructure Debt Service
501 2010 Infrastructure Debt Service (Storm portion)
516 2008 Debt Service
517 2012 Debt Service
517 G.O. Improvement Bonds 2013A
518 G.O Refunding Debt Service, series 2010B
519 2011A G.O Refunding Debt Service
519 2011A G.O Refunding Debt Service (Storm Portion
520 G.O. Bonds 2013B 1,575,000 9/12/2013 2/1/2024 2/1/2021 2.0 - 3.0 1,575,000 1,575,000 1,440,000 1,290,000 1,140,000 985,000 830,000 670,000
Total G.O. Improvement Bonds 15,295,000 14,805,000 14,150,000 13,300,000 12,415,000 11,515,000 10,575,000 9,610,000 8,620,000
Total Governmental-type Debt 14,805,000$ 14,150,000$ 13,300,000$ 12,415,000$ 11,515,000$ 10,575,000$ 9,610,000$ 8,620,000$
Debt Per Capita - governmental total 4,172$ 3,987$ 3,748$ 3,498$ 3,245$ 2,980$ 2,708$ 2,429$
Debt Per Capita - enterprise funds 4,144 3,956 3,750 3,541 3,329 3,114 2,894 2,669
Total Debt per capita 8,315$ 7,944$ 7,498$ 7,039$ 6,574$ 6,093$ 5,602$ 5,098$
10
City of Sample, Minnesota
Schedule of Debt Transfers By Year and Fund
For the Years Ended December 31, 2014 To 2020 Estimated
Fund 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
2010 Infrastructure Debt Service Fund (501)
Transfer in from fund 603 (Storm Water)7,273$ 7,169$ 7,038$ 6,906$ 6,759$ 6,597$ 6,434$
7,273 7,169 7,038 6,906 6,759 6,597 6,434
2008 Debt Service fund (516)
Transfer in from fund 602 (Sewer)11,810$ 11,810$ 11,810$ 11,810$ 11,810$ 11,810$ 11,810$
Transfer in from fund 601 (Water)683 683 683 683 683 683 683
12,493 12,493 12,493 12,493 12,493 12,493 12,493
2010B G.O. Refunding Debt Service fund (518)
Transfer in from fund 603 (Storm Water)7,281$ 7,281$ 7,281$ 7,281$ 7,281$ 7,281$ 7,281$
Transfer in from fund 602 (Sewer)75,312 75,312 75,312 75,312 75,312 75,312 75,312
Transfer in from fund 601 (Water)42,573 42,573 42,573 42,573 42,573 42,573 42,573
125,166 125,166 125,166 125,166 125,166 125,166 125,166
2011A Debt Service fund (519)
Transfer in from fund 603 (Storm Water)32,510$ 32,369$ 32,190$ 31,987$ 31,763$ 32,054$ 32,278$
Transfer in from fund 602 (Sewer)64,980 66,423 66,691 64,849 67,977 65,916 68,818
Transfer in from fund 601 (Water)21,439 21,455 21,434 21,393 21,331 21,747 22,101
118,929 120,247 120,315 118,229 121,071 119,717 123,197
Water enterprise fund (601)
Transfer out to fund 516 (2008 Bonds)(683)$ (683)$ (683)$ (683)$ (683)$ (683)$ (683)$
Transfer out to fund 518 (2010B bonds)(42,573) (42,573) (42,573) (42,573) (42,573) (42,573) (42,573)
Transfer out to fund 519 (2011A bonds)(21,439) (21,455) (21,434) (21,393) (21,331) (21,747) (22,101)
(64,695) (64,711) (64,690) (64,649) (64,587) (65,003) (65,357)
Sewer enterprise fund (602)
Transfer out to fund 516 (2008 Bonds)(11,810)$ (11,810)$ (11,810)$ (11,810)$ (11,810)$ (11,810)$ (11,810)$
Transfer out to fund 518 (2010B bonds)(75,312) (75,312) (75,312) (75,312) (75,312) (75,312) (75,312)
Transfer out to fund 519 (2011A bonds)(64,980) (66,423) (66,691) (64,849) (67,977) (65,916) (68,818)
(152,102) (153,545) (153,813) (151,971) (155,099) (153,038) (155,940)
Storm Water special revenue fund (603)
Transfer out to fund 518 (2010B bonds)(7,281)$ (7,281)$ (7,281)$ (7,281)$ (7,281)$ (7,281)$ (7,281)$
Transfer out to fund 519 (2011A bonds)(32,510) (32,369) (32,190) (31,987) (31,763) (32,054) (32,278)
Transfer out to fund 501 (2010 infrastructure bonds)(7,273) (7,169) (7,038) (6,906) (6,759) (6,597) (6,434)
(47,063) (46,819) (46,508) (46,174) (45,803) (45,932) (45,992)
11
City of Sample, Minnesota
Capital Equipment Plan - Capital Outlay Reserve Fund 275
Schedule of Planned Capital Outlay 2014 To 2020
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Department
Year
Purchased
Year to
replace Item Cost
Estimated
Amounts
Estimated
Amounts
Estimated
Amounts
Estimated
Amounts
Estimated
Amounts
Estimated
Amounts
Estimated
Amounts
Administration 2019 Update City Code 7,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 7,000$ -$
Fire department (equipment)2017 Civil Defense Equipment 25,000 - - - 25,000 - - -
Fire department (equipment)2017 SCBA's 75,000 - - - 75,000 - - -
Fire department (vehicles)2020 Tanker Chasis (1995 & 1996)50,000 - - - - - - 50,000
Fire department (vehicles)2017 Pumper Truck 225,000 - - - 225,000 - - -
Fire department (vehicles)2020 Ladder Truck 600,000 - - - - - - 600,000
Streets 2016 Bush Hog Mower 18,500 - - 18,500 - - - -
Streets 2015 Club car (replace the 2003)4,000 - 4,000 - - - - -
Streets 2017 Club car (replace the 2004)4,000 - - - 4,000 - - -
Streets 2014 Speed Alert Sign Board 5,825 5,825 - - - - - -
Streets 2016 Pole Painting Faxon-212, Reform-212 25,000 - - 25,000 - - - -
Streets 2015 Replace P-4 Ford F-450 60,000 - 60,000 - - - - -
Streets 2016 Dump Truck (Replace 2003 Sterling)150,000 - - 150,000 - - - -
Streets 2019 Plow & Hitch (V-Plow)20,000 - - - - - 20,000 -
Streets 2015 Sidewalk Snow Rem Equip (blower)6,000 - 6,000 - - - - -
Streets 2016 Bobcat replace 24,000 - - 24,000 - - - -
Streets 2015 Milling Machine (put on bobcat)15,000 - 15,000 - - - - -
Streets 2015 Hot Mix Trailer (replace 1988)30,000 - 30,000 - - - - -
Streets 2017 Bucket Truck 80,000 - - - 80,000 - - -
Streets 2021 Dump Truck (Replace T7) 150,000 - - - - - - -
Streets 2023 Loader 110,000 - - - - - - -
Streets 2017 Pickup F150, replace 2007 (P2)25,000 - - - 25,000 - - -
Parks 2014 Sidewalks/Trails/Trees 7,833 7,833 - - - - - -
Parks 2015 Club car (replace the 2003)4,000 - 4,000 - - - - -
Parks 2017 Club car (replace the 2004)4,000 - - - 4,000 - - -
Parks 2020 Ball Field Fence 54,410 - - - - - - 54,410
Parks 2020 Park Bathroom 90,000 - - - - - - 90,000
Parks 2020 Hockey/Skating rink 5,000 - - - - - - 5,000
Parks 2014 Storage Shed 2,285 2,285 - - - - - -
Parks 2016 Paint ball field light towers 5,000 - - 5,000 - - - -
Parks 2016 Pool Turtles 5,400 - - 5,400 - - - -
Parks 2015 Pool Heaters (2)8,000 - 8,000 - - - - -
Parks 2015 Lawn Mower 8,500 - 8,500 - - - - -
Total 15,943$ 135,500$ 227,900$ 438,000$ -$ 27,000$ 799,410$
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
General government -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Administration - - - - - 7,000 -
Streets 5,825 115,000 217,500 109,000 - 20,000 -
Industrial Park Marketing - - - - - - -
Fire department (equipment)- - - 100,000 - - -
Fire department (vehicles)- - - 225,000 - - 650,000
Emergency management - - - - - - -
Parks 10,118 20,500 10,400 4,000 - - 149,410
Total 15,943$ 135,500$ 227,900$ 438,000$ -$ 27,000$ 799,410$
City of Sample, Minnesota
Capital Improvement Plan - Capital Outlay Reserve Fund 275
Schedule of Projected Revenue, Expenditures and Debt 2014 To 2020
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Revenue
Capital Levy 11,695$ 208,056$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000 $
Potential reduction of levy - (98,000) (175,000) (140,000) (98,000) (75,000) (50,000)
Net Capital Levy 11,695 110,056 75,000 110,000 152,000 175,000 200,000
Equipment Certificates (potential)- - - 225,000 - - 600,000
Interest 4,358 - 4,105 2,617 1,613 3,149 4,661
Total Revenue 16,053 110,056 79,105 337,617 153,613 178,149 804,661
Total Expenditures (15,943) (135,500) (227,900) (438,000) - (27,000) (799,410)
Net Change in cash balance 110 (25,444) (148,795) (100,383) 153,613 151,149 5,251
Beginning balance 435,846 435,956 410,512 261,718 161,335 314,948 466,098
Ending balance 435,956$ 410,512$ 261,718$ 161,335$ 314,948$ 466,098$ 471,349 $
Capital Projects Fund Projected Activity
13
City of Sample, Minnesota
Capital Equipment Plan - Enterprise Funds
Schedule of Planned Capital Outlay 2014 To 2020
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Fund Item Cost Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated
Water Mower W/S 25,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Water Replace 1984 Chevy (T-6) PW & PU 20,000 - - - - 20,000 - -
Water Replace Box on Pickup 20,000 20,000 - - - - - -
Water Shed 150,000 - - - - - - -
Sewer Replace manholes - - - - - - -
Sewer Upgrade Camera equipment 15,000 - - - - - - -
Sewer Replace Jetter 175,000 - - - - - - -
Sewer Replace Vac Trailer 120,000 - - 15,000 15,000 - - 120,000
Sewer Purchase/Upgrade building 150,000 - - - - - - -
Sewer Portable Generator 27,000 - - - - - - -
Sewer W W TP generator 70,000 - - - - - 70,000 -
Sewer New Camera 30,000 - - 15,000 - - - -
Sewer Replace 1984 Chevy (T-6) PW & PU 20,000 - - - - 20,000 - -
Sewer Replace Box on Pickup 20,000 - - - - - - -
Sewer Pump Trailer 30,000 - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
20,000$ -$ 30,000$ 15,000$ 40,000$ 70,000$ 120,000$
Summary by Fund
Water 20,000$ -$ -$ -$ 20,000$ -$ -$
Sewer - - 30,000 15,000 20,000 70,000 120,000
20,000$ -$ 30,000$ 15,000$ 40,000$ 70,000$ 120,000$
14
Tax Rates
Tax Rates:
Tax rates are a function of the levy and total tax base. The city tax rate is computed by dividing the city levy by the taxable tax capacity.
Comparable communities are provided for reference. The increase in levy and the tax rate in 2015 relates primarily with the transfer to the Capital fund (275).
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
City of Sample Tax Rates -
2013 -2014 (Actual), 2015-2020 (Projected)
Proposed additional debt levies Scheduled capital levies
Scheduled debt levies General
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
City Name City Name City Name City Name City Name
City of Sample Tax Capacity Rates -
2010 -2014, 2015
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Estimated
15
General Fund Operations and All Funds Cash Balances
General Fund Balance as a Percent of Revenue:Cash Balance by Planned Use (000's):
The General fund fund balance should be maintained at a level to provide for
adequate working capital reserves. The City has established a 50 percent target
to sustain.
The balances represented in this graph are categorized by the planned
use and/or limitations determined by statute.
$(1,000,000)
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Cash Balance by Planned Use (000's)
Special revenue limited to specific purposeTIF
Enterprise capital and working capitalCapital projectsDebt serviceGeneral fund working capital
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
Fund Balance Budget Target Fund Balance
General Fund Balance as a Percent of Expenditures
16
Property Taxes by Type
Percent of Property Taxes - General Levy and Bonds
This graph highlights the percent of levy by planned use. It is notable that 46
percent of the levy is allocated to debt in 2014 and is scheduled to decrease. The
overall city tax burden for a $142,700 house in 2014 is shown in the graph on the
right.
The overall property tax levy for a median valued house is
highlighted above.
Projected City Tax Impact - 2014 $142,700 home
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Property Taxes -General Levy, Bonds and Potential Levies to Balance Projects
General Bonds Capital Funds Potential to fund projects
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
55%54%51%54%53%52%53%54%
45%46%43%42%43%41%40%38%
Percent of Property Taxes -General Levy, Bonds
and Potential Levies to Balance Projects
General Bonds Capital Funds Potential to fund projects
$737 $758 $754 $839 $916
$963 $999
$1,094
$-
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Projected City Tax Impact on an Median Valued
Residential Property
17
Debt
The above assumes no new debt. From 2013 to 2020, as presented above,The above assumes no new debt. From 2013 to 2020, as presented abov
total governmental type debt is reduced from $14.8 million to $9.2 million.total enterprise fund debt is reduced from $14.9 million to $9.8 million.
A reduction of approximately $5.6 million.A reduction of approximately $5.1 million.
$-
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
$16,000,000
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Projected Governmental Debt Balances Based on
Current Amortizations
GO Revenue
GO Potential Debt - Assumed based on CIP
GO Equipment Certificates
$-
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
$16,000,000
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Enterprise Funds Outstanding Debt Balances
Water fund Sewer fund Assisted Living fund
$-
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Total Debt per Capita
City Name City Name City Name City Name City Name
18
Annual Debt Service Requirements
Beginning in 2015, the City has approximately $1.3 million in governmental debt service requirements that are paid with tax levy, special assessments
and, as shown above, transfer in from enterprise and special revenue funds. Transfers in approximate $260 thousand each year to assist in the debt service
requirements.
Enterprise funds pay approximately $1.1 million each year for debt service requirements for bonds recorded in the Water, Sewer, and Assisted Living
funds. The Water and Sewer funds transfer approximately $220K of funds to debt service funds for their share of the bonds recorded in the Debt Service funds.
$-
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
$1,600,000
20
1
4
20
1
5
20
1
6
20
1
7
20
1
8
20
1
9
20
2
0
20
2
1
20
2
2
20
2
3
20
2
4
20
2
5
20
2
6
20
2
7
20
2
8
20
2
9
20
3
0
20
3
1
20
3
2
20
3
3
20
3
4
20
3
5
20
3
6
20
3
7
20
3
8
20
3
9
Governmental Debt Service Requirements
Principal Interest Transfers in
$-
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
$1,600,000
20
1
4
20
1
5
20
1
6
20
1
7
20
1
8
20
1
9
20
2
0
20
2
1
20
2
2
20
2
3
20
2
4
20
2
5
20
2
6
20
2
7
20
2
8
20
2
9
20
3
0
20
3
1
20
3
2
20
3
3
20
3
4
20
3
5
20
3
6
20
3
7
20
3
8
20
3
9
20
4
0
Enterprise Debt Service Requirements
Principal Interest Transfers out
19