HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013/11/12 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
NOVEMBER 12, 2013
(Councilmembers Hallfin & Spano Out)
6:30 p.m. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
2a. Canvass Results of Municipal General Election Held on November 5, 2013
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution Declaring Results of the
Municipal General Election held November 5, 2013.
3. Adjournment
Immediately Following the Special City Council Meeting
STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 5 min. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – November 25
2. 15 min. Southwest LRT Update
3. 60 min. Long Range Financial Management Plan and 2014 – 2018 C.I.P.
4. 15 min. City Manager’s 2013 Performance Evaluation Discussion
5 min. Communications/Updates (Verbal)
Written Reports
5. September 2013 Monthly Financial Report
6. Update on Environment and Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular City Council meetings are carried live on Civic TV cable
channel 17 and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed live on the
internet at www.parktv.org, and saved for Video on Demand replays. The agenda is posted on Fridays on the official city
bulletin board in the lobby of City Hall and on the text display on Civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full packet
are available by 3pm on Friday on the city’s website.
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the
Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
Meeting: Special City Council
Meeting Date: November 12, 2013
Action Agenda Item: 2a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election Held on November 5, 2013
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution Declaring Results of the Municipal
General Election held November 5, 2013.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None
SUMMARY: Minnesota Statutes 205.185 subd. 3 states the canvassing of municipal general
election results must be conducted between the third and tenth day after the election. City
Charter Section 4.08 requires the City Council to meet and canvass election returns within seven
days of any regular or special election and declare the results as soon as possible.
As required by Charter, the Resolution includes:
• Total number of good ballots cast
• Total number of spoiled or defective ballots
• The vote for each candidate with a declaration of those who were elected
• A true copy of the ballots used
• The names of the judges and clerks of election
• Such other information as may seem pertinent
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Election expenses are included in the
adopted 2013 budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community through recruitment and training of community members to serve as Election Judges.
Attachments: Resolution
Election Precinct Results
Write In Names Tally
True Copy of Precinct Ballots
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Approved by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Special City Council Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 2a) Page 2
Subject: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election Held on November 5, 2013
RESOLUTION NO. 13 -____
RESOLUTION CANVASSING ELECTION RETURNS OF
ST. LOUIS PARK – NOVEMBER 5, 2013
MUNICIPAL GENERAL ELECTION
WHEREAS, pursuant to City Charter Section 4.08, the City Council shall meet and
canvass election returns within seven days of any election and shall declare the results as soon as
possible; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 205.185 subd. 3 states the
canvassing of municipal general election results must be conducted between the third and tenth
days after the election; and
WHEREAS, the results prepared and certified to by the election judges have been
presented in summary form to the City Council for inspection,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council as follows:
1. The November 5, 2013 election returns having been canvassed, the votes received by each
candidate for city offices are as follows:
CITY OFFICES
Councilmember Ward 1
Total
Votes
% of
Vote
Sue Sanger 1,210 94.2%
Write-ins 74 5.8%
TOTAL 1,284 100.0%
Councilmember Ward 2
Anne Mavity 1,138 93.5%
Write-ins 79 6.5%
TOTAL 1,217 100.0%
Councilmember Ward 3
Gregg Lindberg 733 54.5%
Sue Santa 609 45.3%
Write-ins 2 0.1%
TOTAL 1,344 100.0%
Councilmember Ward 4
Tim Brausen 781 68.2%
Bill Theobald 354 30.9%
Write-ins 10 0.9%
TOTAL 1,145 100.0%
Special City Council Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 2a) Page 3
Subject: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election Held on November 5, 2013
2. The number of spoiled ballots, the number of persons registered prior to the election and on
Election Day, the number of voter receipts, the number of absentee ballots, and the total
number of good votes cast in the city are as follows:
SPOILED BALLOTS 43
REGISTERED AT 7 A.M. 29,375
REGISTERED AT THE POLLS 282
TOTAL REGISTERED VOTERS 29,657
VOTER RECEIPTS 5,745
ABSENTEE BALLOTS 254
TOTAL VOTERS 5,999
(Percent Voting) 20%
3. The Clerk and Judges of the election were as follows:
Nancy J. Stroth, City Clerk Kay Midura, Election Official
Debbie Fischer, Election Official Tim Jones, Election Technician
ELECTION JUDGES
WARD 1
1-1, Beth El Synagogue
Mary Enz - Chair
Todd Hintz – Co Chair
Judith Cook
Patricia Davis
Richard Dworsky
Forrest Peiper
Nancy Wood
1-2, Peter Hobart Elementary School
Eunice Slager - Chair
Margaret Marek – Co-Chair
Rose Bratland
Dianne Casey
Gay Ann Ellingsberg
Lawrence Grose
Katherine Kloehn
Donna Ness
1-3, St. Louis Park City Hall
Barbara Ruhl - Chair
Mary Maynard – Co-Chair
Carol Kohler
Barb Osfar
Esther Smith
Lucille Thornsjo
1-4, Central Community Center
Jami LaPray - Chair
Nanette Malcomson - Co-Chair
Nan Blomquist
Richard Thorne
Dana Uhrig-Fox
WARD 2
2-5, Union Congregational Church
Kay Drache - Chair
David Richards – Co-Chair
Joan Gerhardson
Philip Lindblad
Shammi Lochan
2-6, St. Louis Park Rec Center
David Larson - Chair
Debra Wuebker – Co-Chair
Ronald Adams
J. Hamilton Kurtz
Brendalee Litman
Karen Secor
Sheila Woodbeck
Special City Council Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 2a) Page 4
Subject: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election Held on November 5, 2013
2-7, Susan Lindgren Elementary School
Ernest Tursich - Chair
Loren Botner – Co-Chair
Joan Lee
Carol Nulsen
Joy Showalter
Jo Tennison
Gay Urness
2-8, Aldersgate United Methodist Church
Julie Anne Manuel - Chair
Carolyn Turk – Co-Chair
Roberta Gale
Marguerite Krause
Kirsten Kurtz
Heather Mainella
WARD 3
3-9, Prince of Peace Lutheran Church
William Tape - Chair
Kimball Justesen – Co-Chair
John Iacono
Carol Johnson
Regina Smith
Roz Wyles
3-10, Lenox Community Center
Judy Shapiro - Chair
Martin Lee – Co-Chair
Jane Ahrens
Gary Berkovitz
William Robinson
Irene Thoennes
3-11, St. Louis Park Senior High School
Judith Serrell - Chair
Janet Benson - Co-Chair
Susanne Mattison
Lois Nalezny
Francis Schmit
3-12, Aquila Elementary School
Ken Huiras - Chair
Kevin Marsh – Co-Chair
Glenice Cannon
John Hemmerle
John Schaefer
Kris Stapleton
WARD 4
4-13, Westwood Lutheran Church
Angela Fischels - Chair
Kathy Metzker – Co-Chair
Beverly Fricke
Shirley Huiras
Cecile Javinsky
Sandra Johnson
Josie Petermeier
4-14, Park Assembly Church
Mary Hendrix - Chair
Mary Lou Christensen – Co-Chair
Peter Gardner – Co-Chair
Helen Desens
Todd Kalk
Kathy McKay
Ross Plovnick
Jason Smalley
4-15, Peace Presbyterian Church
Mary Wickersham - Chair
Brenda Martens – Co-Chair
Patricia Kremer
Elizabeth Rung
John White
4-16, Sabes Jewish Community Center
David Brehmer – Chair
Ross Oden – Co-Chair
Christine Johnson
Rachel Shoger
Julie Weaver
Absentee Ballot Board Judges
Melonie Danovsky
Debbie Fischer
Mary Hendrix
Josephine Jacobs
Darla Monson
Lori Vail
Special City Council Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 2a) Page 5
Subject: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election Held on November 5, 2013
4. True copies of the ballots are attached.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council that the
following candidates have been elected to four (4) year terms commencing on the first (1st)
regularly scheduled meeting of 2014:
Councilmember Ward 1 - Sue Sanger
Councilmember Ward 2 - Anne Mavity
Councilmember Ward 3 - Gregg Lindberg
Councilmember Ward 4 - Tim Brausen
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 12, 2013
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City of St. Louis Park Local Election November 5, 2013
Total % of WARD 1 WARD 2 WARD 3 WARD 4
Office Votes Vote Total 1 2 3 4 Total 5 6 7 8 Total 9 10 11 12 Total 13 14 15 16
CITY OFFICES
Councilmember Ward 1
Sue Sanger 1,210 94.2%1,210 469 506 55 180 0 0 0
Write-ins 74 5.8%74 37 28 3 6 0 0 0
1,284 100.0%
Anne Mavity 1,138 93.5%0 1,138 150 162 576 250 0 0
Write-ins 79 6.5%0 79 8 3 52 16 0 0
1,217 100.0%
Councilmember Ward 3
Sue Santa 609 45.3%0 0 609 173 103 131 202 0
Gregg Lindberg 733 54.5%0 0 733 164 121 178 270 0
Write-ins 2 0.1%0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0
1,344 100.0%
Councilmember Ward 4
Tim Brausen 781 68.2%0 0 0 781 107 410 156 108
Bill Theobald 354 30.9%0 0 0 354 62 171 66 55
Write-ins 10 0.9%0 0 0 10 2 4 3 1
1,145 100.0%
SCHOOL DISTRICTS
VOTE FOR THREE
Jim Yarosh 3,213 27.2%879 415 308 32 124 904 127 99 502 176 676 181 114 158 223 754 54 475 136 89
Karen Waters 2,985 25.3%739 334 268 30 107 916 134 108 456 218 674 172 111 177 214 656 35 392 135 94
Jim Beneke 1,842 15.6%482 159 230 21 72 482 70 63 232 117 444 103 70 121 150 434 28 246 91 69
Bruce Richardson 2,200 18.6%576 249 217 30 80 643 83 87 352 121 505 106 86 113 200 476 40 277 83 76
Christine Johnson 1,503 12.7%377 105 162 25 85 299 49 69 120 61 472 114 79 97 182 355 20 197 87 51
Write-Ins 54 0.5%24 10 11 2 1 16 4 1 9 2 7 2 0 1 4 7 0 3 1 3
11,797 100.0%
Ken Morrison 3,622 97.7%965 360 407 50 148 991 134 139 481 237 854 227 125 204 298 812 56 445 184 127
Write-ins 86 2.3%30 10 14 2 4 24 3 2 12 7 16 3 6 2 5 16 0 9 2 5
3,708 100.0%
YES 4,390 75.5%1,161 460 484 56 161 1,204 160 166 636 242 1,065 265 170 263 367 960 65 560 208 127
NO 1,428 24.5%366 140 160 19 47 326 49 40 132 105 384 94 77 75 138 352 30 160 85 77
5,818 100.0%
YES 4,414 75.7%1,174 466 487 58 163 1,202 158 170 639 235 1,069 270 172 263 364 969 62 558 212 137
NO 1,416 24.3%353 135 156 17 45 328 53 37 129 109 384 89 76 75 144 351 34 168 81 68
5,830 100.0%
YES 4,336 74.3%1,150 455 475 57 163 1,185 154 167 632 232 1,043 265 160 256 362 958 58 557 216 127
NO 1,498 25.7%377 145 169 18 45 351 57 42 137 115 409 93 87 82 147 361 39 167 77 78
5,834 100.0%
Councilmember Ward 2
St. Louis Park ISD No. 283
Special Election for School Board Member
UNOFFICIAL RESULTS
St. Louis Park ISD No. 283 School
Board Member
SLP Question 1 - Revoking Existing Capital Project
Levy Authorization; Approving New
SLP Question 2 - Approval of School District Bond
Issue
SLP Question 3 - Approval of School District
Referendum Revenue Authorization
Special City Counil Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 2a) Title: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election Held on November 5, 2013 Page 6
City of St. Louis Park Local Election November 5, 2013
Total % of WARD 1 WARD 2 WARD 3 WARD 4
Office Votes Vote Total 1 2 3 4 Total 5 6 7 8 Total 9 10 11 12 Total 13 14 15 16
UNOFFICIAL RESULTS
VOTE FOR THREE
Heather Hansen 35 14.1%0 0 0 0 35 35
Betsy Scheurer Anderson 52 20.9%0 0 0 0 52 52
Tobias McKenna 13 5.2%0 0 0 0 13 13
Gang Gary Jing 14 5.6%0 0 0 0 14 14
Warren Goodroad 39 15.7%0 0 0 0 39 39
Katie Fulkerson 58 23.3%0 0 0 0 58 58
Michael Doobie Kurus 38 15.3%0 0 0 0 38 38
Write-Ins 0 0.0%0 0 0 0 0 0
249 100.0%
YES 70 57.4%0 0 0 0 70 70
NO 52 42.6%0 0 0 0 52 52
122 100.0%
YES 69 56.6%0 0 0 0 69 69
NO 53 43.4%0 0 0 0 53 53
122 100.0%
VOTE FOR FOUR
Lisa O'Brien 1 33.3%0 1 1 0 0
Vivien Talghader 0 0.0%0 0 0 0 0
Gayle Castro 0 0.0%0 0 0 0 0
Regina Neville 1 33.3%0 1 1 0 0
Randy Meyer 1 33.3%0 1 1 0 0
David Goldstein 0 0.0%0 0 0 0 0
Leonel Dorvil 0 0.0%0 0 0 0 0
Mark Sparano 0 0.0%0 0 0 0 0
Danielle Mitchell Busby 0 0.0%0 0 0 0 0
Write-ins 0 0.0%0 0 0 0 0
3 100.0%
SPOILED BALLOTS 43 11 8 3 0 0 13 1 4 7 1 7 2 1 0 4 12 5 3 1 3
REGISTERED AT 7 A.M.29,375 7,375 2,431 2,909 1,035 1,000 7,607 1,200 2,021 2,419 1,967 7,185 1,681 1,584 1,450 2,470 7,208 1,644 2,663 1,597 1,304
REG AT THE POLLS 282 74 21 27 14 12 84 6 24 38 16 58 19 17 5 17 66 7 35 13 11
TOTAL REGISTERED 29,657 7,449 2,452 2,936 1,049 1,012 7,691 1,206 2,045 2,457 1,983 7,243 1,700 1,601 1,455 2,487 7,274 1,651 2,698 1,610 1,315
VOTER RECEIPTS 5,745 1,481 578 627 73 203 1,494 209 187 755 343 1,379 332 243 329 475 1,391 213 700 280 198
ABSENTEE BALLOTS 254 51 26 18 2 5 54 2 26 21 5 93 35 9 10 39 56 6 30 13 7
Percent Voting Absentee 4%3%4%3%3%2%4%1%14%3%1%7%11%4%3%8%4%3%4%5%4%
TOTAL VOTERS 5,999 1,532 604 645 75 208 1,548 211 213 776 348 1,472 367 252 339 514 1,447 219 730 293 205
(PERCENT VOTING)20%21%25%22%7%21%20%17%10%32%18%20%22%16%23%21%20%13%27%18%16%
Hopkins Question 1 - Revoking Existing Referendum
Revenue Auth; Approving New
Hopkins Question 2 - Approval of School District
Capital Project Levy Authorization
Hopkins ISD No. 270 School
Board Member
Edina ISD No. 273 School
Board Member
Special City Counil Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 2a) Title: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election Held on November 5, 2013 Page 7
First Name Last Name # Votes First Name Last Name # Votes
Anyone else 5 Annie 1 else 1
No Confidence 1 any other person!1
No Name 10 Anyone 1
None 1 Anyone but 1
Other 1 Anyone but Mavity 1
Sharon Abelson 6 Anyone else 3
Jim Beneke 1 Claudia 1
Lorraine Boyle 1 No Name 8
Sean Christenson 2 Snowday 1
Santa Claus 1 John Basil 1
Sondra Cohen 1 Melissa Brogger 1
Ted Cruz 1 Susan Cantor 2
Nathan Curland 1 Kenna Clark 1
DuWayne Dixon 1 Will Donovan III 1
John Doe 1 Ronald Durkin 1
Matthew J.Dolimpio 2 Steve Frank 2
Mrs.Flanagan 1 S. Joshua Gruber 1
John Henkels 1 Gary Hanson 2
Scott Herstein 1 John Herbert 1
Peter A.Hines 1 Nick Jacobs 1
Richard Hisi 1 Sarah Johnson 1
Steve Hunegs 1 Carol Johnson 1
Don Jenson 1 Claudia Johnston 2
Sue Johnson 1 Claudia Johnston-Madison 6
Steven Kaplan 1 Renae Kuehl 1
Benjemin Kent 1 Casey Kuettner 1
Roland Marek 1 David E.Larson 1
Gerald Meier 1 Greg Lasica 1
Albert Miller 1 Mary Jo Lochan 1
Minnie Mouse 1 Claudia Madison 1
Nathan Munson 1 Tedd Mantel 2
Jordon Murray 1 Steve May 5
Mark Nelson 1 Mary McCloud 1
Kristina Nesse 2 John Miller 1
D.R.Nord 1 Tim Monchamp 1
Ray O'Bryan 1 Mickey Mouse 1
Av Olitzky 1 Greg Phelan 2
Luke Olson 1 Robert Pieper 1
William Patton 1 John Profield 1
Polly Pitchfork 1 Patrick Rafferty 1
Peter Rabbit 1 Jessica Sardager 1
Teri Reitan 1 Maureen Seiwert 1
Jim Rhodes 1 Joy Showalter 1
Turd Sandwich 1 Homer Simpson 1
Chantel Schlegel 1 Bill Skalke 1
Hugo Searle 1 Frank Steck 1
Polly P.Silverman 1 Chad Stewart 1
Homer Simpson 1 Mary Struthers 1
Clement M.Slone 1 Matthew Swanson 1
Henry Volleur 1 Patrick Swayze 1
Kay Webster 1 Joe Tatalovich 1
Tom Westlund 1 Jerry Timian 1
Sandy Woessner 1 Darth Vader 1
Brad Williams 1TOTAL74Jenifer R.Williams 1
TOTAL 79
WARD 2 COUNCILMEMBERWARD 1 COUNCILMEMBER
CITY COUNCIL
NOVEMBER 5, 2013 GENERAL ELECTION
WRITE-IN RESULTS
Special City Counil Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 2a) Title: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election Held on November 5, 2013 Page 8
First Name Last Name # Votes First Name Last Name # Votes
No Name 1 No Name 2
Scott Hanson 1 Marc Berg 1
Daniel Burns 1TOTAL2CarrieJennison1
Jason Lewis 1
Ms. KM McKay 1
Joslyn Runyon 1
Lynn Sadoff 1
William Starr 1
TOTAL 10
CITY COUNCIL
NOVEMBER 5, 2013 GENERAL ELECTION
WRITE-IN RESULTS
WARD 3 COUNCILMEMBER WARD 4 COUNCILMEMBER
Special City Counil Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election Held on November 5, 2013
Page 9
Special City Counil Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election Held on November 5, 2013 Page 10
Special City Counil Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election Held on November 5, 2013 Page 11
Special City Counil Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election Held on November 5, 2013 Page 12
Special City Counil Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election Held on November 5, 2013 Page 13
Special City Counil Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election Held on November 5, 2013 Page 14
Special City Counil Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election Held on November 5, 2013 Page 15
Special City Counil Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election Held on November 5, 2013 Page 16
Special City Counil Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election Held on November 5, 2013 Page 17
Special City Counil Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election Held on November 5, 2013 Page 18
Special City Counil Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election Held on November 5, 2013 Page 19
Special City Counil Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election Held on November 5, 2013 Page 20
Special City Counil Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election Held on November 5, 2013 Page 21
Special City Counil Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election Held on November 5, 2013 Page 22
Special City Counil Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election Held on November 5, 2013 Page 23
Special City Counil Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election Held on November 5, 2013 Page 24
Special City Counil Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election Held on November 5, 2013 Page 25
Special City Counil Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election Held on November 5, 2013 Page 26
Special City Counil Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election Held on November 5, 2013 Page 27
Special City Counil Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election Held on November 5, 2013 Page 28
Special City Counil Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Canvass Results of Municipal General Election Held on November 5, 2013 Page 29
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: November 12, 2013
Discussion Item: 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – November 25, 2013
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for
the regularly scheduled Study Session on November 25, 2013.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the agendas as proposed?
SUMMARY: At each study session approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next
study session agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the proposed discussion items for
the regularly scheduled Study Session on November 25, 2013.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – November 25, 2013
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – November 25, 2013
Tour of Remodeled City Hall 1st Floor, November 25 – 6:30 p.m.
Study Session, November 25, 2013 – Immediately Following Tour
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Housing Study Presentation (SWLRT/Maxfield Study) – Community Development (60 minutes)
Representatives from the County and Maxfield Research will present an overview of the
results from studies that were conducted in order to make recommendations on joint policies,
tools and financing strategies that help to achieve a full range of housing choices along the
SWLRT Corridor in conjunction with future transit investments.
3. Grant for Form-Based Code Process in LRT Station Areas – Community Development (20
minutes)
The City received a $100,000 grant from Met Council Livable Communities Act – Transit
Oriented Development (LCA-TOD) to undertake a Form Based Code process in the LRT
Station areas. Form-based codes take a different approach to zoning on properties, setting
forth the design or “form” for new development and buildings in an area. Developing the
code is expected to take about 15 months. The City would hire an experienced consultant to
carry out a strong public process to define the form and regulations for our station areas.
4. Results from LISC Community Development Initiative (CDI) for Wooddale LRT Station
Area – Community Development (30 minutes)
Community Development Initiative (CDI) process on the city/county 2-acre site at Wooddale
LRT station was held in October and November by the LISC group (Local Initiative Support
Group) through a HUD grant given to the Metro Council. The process included four
meetings and its purpose was to look closely at the site for development options and
opportunities, and determine if they were financially feasible. A panel of developers
commented on the ideas and gave their sense of the sites from a market standpoint. Gretchen
Nicholls from LISC will be present to discuss the process and outcomes.
Communications/Meeting Check-In – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session
agenda for the purposes of information sharing.
Reports
5. 2013 October Financial Report
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: November 12, 2013
Discussion Item: 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Southwest LRT Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required. Staff proposes to discuss with the City
Council the proposed Scope of Work as prepared by the Southwest Project Office for the
additional freight rail analysis as directed by the Governor.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council have questions regarding the scope of work?
SUMMARY: Several weeks ago the Governor directed that the Met Council/SPO undertake
additional analysis by an outside consultant regarding previous freight rail reroute options that
have been identified or studied in the past to insure no opportunities for rerouting freight rail
have been overlooked.
SPO staff has prepared a Scope of Work for the study that would be used to engage a consultant.
Staff from St. Louis Park, Minneapolis, and Hennepin County were allowed to provide input on
the Scope of Work. The Corridor Management Committee reviewed the Scope at their meeting
of November 6.
The SPO is proposing that a consultant be brought on board by late November with the analysis
to be completed within 6 weeks.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Scope of Work
Prepared by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
REV 4 October 31, 2013
DRAFT SOW
1
Engineering Evaluation of Freight Rail Relocation Alternatives
Background
The COUNCIL has hired Kimley-Horn and Associates (KHA) to develop designs related to
connecting freight rail between the Canadian Pacific (CP) owned Bass Lake Spur and the BNSF
owned Wayzata Subdivision. These tracks are currently connected via the Hennepin County
Regional Railroad Authority owned tracks that extend through the Kenilworth Corridor in
Minneapolis. The primary freight railroad operating on this trackage is Twin Cities and Western
Railroad (TC&W).
KHA, working with the COUNCIL as part of the Southwest LRT Project Office (SPO), has
developed several relocation designs that would connect the Bass Lake Spur with the Wayzata
Subdivision through St. Louis Park via the CP owned Minneapolis, Northfield and Southern
(MN&S) Subdivision. The primary freight railroad that would operate on this trackage is
TC&W. CP would continue to operate on the MN&S Subdivision. The relocation designs were
developed following a review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) freight rail
relocation design and subsequent comments submitted by the railroads on the DEIS design.
The attached map shows the track locations as well as track ownership and operators.
In addition to this work by the COUNCIL, prior studies have evaluated alternatives rerouting the
TC&W freight traffic in and around the Twin Cities area. These prior studies have identified
various freight rail routes for TC&W operations. These studies are as follows:
St. Louis Park Railroad Study, by RLK for St. Louis Park and Hennepin County, 1999
TCWR Freight Rail Realignment Study, by HCRRA/TKDA, 2009
Evaluation of TCWR Routing Alternatives, By Amfahr for Hennepin County, 2010
Technical Memorandum #1, by SEH for St. Louis Park, 2010
Technical Memorandum #2, by SEH for St. Louis Park, 2011
Technical Memorandum #3, by SEH for St. Louis Park, 2011
Technical Memorandum #4, by SEH for St. Louis Park, 2011
In addition to these studies, United Transportation Union (UTU) identified a potential variation
of rerouting in their October 4 and 7, 2013 letters.
Other information relevant to the Work includes:
Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan, 2010
DEIS Freight Rail Relocation design, by Hennepin County, 2011
DEIS comments on Freight Rail Relocation design, 2011
Scope of Work
The CONSULTANT shall prepare a report that includes a matrix summarizing the freight rail
relocation alternatives and the CONSULTANT’s conclusions and recommendations on viable
relocation alignments based on its professional judgment and industry standards, technical (track
plan and profile), safety and operational considerations, conformance with other applicable
standards (AREMA, MN Statutes, Railroad Design Criteria), any significant obstacles to
implementation and other potential impacts that may need to be taken into consideration. The
CONSULTANT shall also report on feedback received from the railroads regarding these
Study Session Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 2)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 2
REV 4 October 31, 2013
DRAFT SOW
2
considerations. Specifically, the CONSULTANT shall provide the following services according
to the schedule provided:
1. Review freight rail relocation information provided by SPO including, but not limited to,
the documents described above.
2. Review the results of train performance simulations developed by KHA for the
COUNCIL.
3. Participate in a project kickoff meeting at the SPO in St. Louis Park, MN with project
stakeholders including, but not limited to, the cities of Minneapolis and St. Louis Park,
Hennepin County and the freight railroads, BNSF, CP and TC&W. The kick-off meeting
will consist of an overview of the following:
Existing freight rail track configuration and freight rail operations;
Alignments developed by the SPO; and
Alignments evaluated by others, as identified above.
This activity will include a site tour.
4. Conduct interviews with BNSF, CP Rail and TC&W Railroad technical staff regarding
current operations and potential relocation alternatives.
5. Conduct evaluations of the following freight rail relocation alternatives, as identified
below:
Modified MN&S;
Alternative route identified by UTU;
At-grade Brunswick Central;
Elevated Brunswick Central;
Alternative(s) deemed feasible during the review of prior studies;
Any new alternative(s) that the CONSULTANT may identify as part of the Work;
At-grade Brunswick West;
Elevated Brunswick West; and
Brunswick East.
Evaluations shall include identification of operational cost drivers, identification of
community and other impacts and an assessment of possible operational adjustments,
including the viability of breaking trains into two or more trainsets that may be
required to negotiate alignments.
6. Provide input to SPO on capital costs associated with alternative alignments that are
deemed viable, as appropriate.
7. Prepare a summary, as described above, of the alignment alternatives.
8. Prepare and provide a draft report for review by the COUNCIL that includes the results
of the evaluations and other reviews conducted under this Scope of Work.
9. Participate in a meeting at the SPO with project stakeholders to review the draft report
and receive comments.
10. Prepare and provide a final report for presentation to Project advisory committees.
11. Participate in up to three Project advisory committee meetings as directed by the
COUNCIL.
12. The CONSULTANT shall provide services, support or assistance not defined above as
necessary and as authorized by the COUNCIL.
Study Session Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 2)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 3
1
Freight Rail
Study Session Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 2)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 4
REV 2 October 30, 2013
DRAFT SOW
1
Engineering Evaluation of Water Resources for Shallow LRT Tunnels
Background
The COUNCIL has hired Kimley-Horn and Associates (KHA) to conduct preliminary
engineering activities to develop plans and designs for the Southwest Light Rail Transit
(SWLRT) Project.
In August 2013, the COUNCIL’s Southwest LRT Project Office (SPO) met with City of
Minneapolis staff, Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB) staff and Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District (MCWD) staff to share technical information related to the design and
construction of the shallow LRT tunnels in the Kenilworth Corridor in Minneapolis. The area
addressed by this potential design option is located between the proposed locations of the West
Lake Station and the Penn Station in the general area of the Kenilworth Corridor.
SPO developed a draft Kenilworth Shallow LRT Tunnel Basis of Design Report that provides
technical information on the proposed approach to constructing the tunnels including control of
groundwater during construction and addresses potential impacts to the area water resources both
during construction and during operations.
On September 4, 2013, the SPO sent a letter to MCWD requesting that MCWD provide technical
feedback in a written response to the materials provided regarding the Shallow LRT Tunnel.
On September 10, 2013, MCWD sent a letter to SPO responding to the SPO request. The
MCWD letter included an attached letter dated September 9, 2013 from MCWD District
Engineer (Wenck Associates, Inc.) that included comments to the SPO request for technical
feedback.
The SPO is currently developing a draft water monitoring program that will address water levels,
ground water levels and water quality during construction of the Shallow LRT Tunnels and
during LRT operations.
Scope of Work
The CONSULTANT shall conduct an engineering evaluation and technical review of the
following documents:
Kenilworth Shallow LRT Tunnel Basis of Design Report (DRAFT)
September 4, 2013 SPO letter to MCWD
September 10, 2013 MCWD response letter to SPO
September 9, 2013 Wenck Associates, Inc. letter to MCWD
SWLRT Water Monitoring Program (DRAFT)
Phase I ESA
Specifically, the CONSULTANT shall provide the following services according to the schedule
provided below:
1. Review the materials and information listed above provided by the SPO.
2. Participate in a kickoff meeting at the SPO in St. Louis Park, MN with project
stakeholders. The kick-off meeting will consist of an overview of the work performed to
date by the SPO and the technical feedback received to date by the SPO.
Study Session Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 2)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 5
REV 2 October 30, 2013
DRAFT SOW
2
3. Conduct an engineering evaluation and technical review on the materials provided in the
draft Basis of Design Report based on the issues identified in the September 4, 2013 SPO
letter sent to MCWD.
4. Conduct an engineering evaluation and technical review of the draft water monitoring
program as developed by the SPO for the Shallow LRT Tunnel.
5. Prepare and provide a draft report for review by the COUNCIL that includes the results
of the engineering evaluations and other reviews conducted under this Scope of Work.
6. Participate in a meeting at SPO with project stakeholders to review the draft report and
receive comments.
7. Prepare and provide a final report for presentation to Project advisory committees.
8. Participate in up to three Project advisory committee meetings as directed by the
COUNCIL.
Study Session Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 2)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 6
Area of Study1 Study Session Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 2) Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 7
REV 3 October 31, 2013
DRAFT SOW
1
Kenilworth Corridor Landscape/Greenscape Analysis for the Shallow
LRT Tunnels
Background
The COUNCIL’s Southwest LRT Project Office (SPO) has proposed to design and construct the
SWLRT line through the Kenilworth Corridor by means of two shallow tunnels that would carry
the LRT tracks and would extend next to the existing freight rail tracks and lie beneath the at-
grade Kenilworth trail.
In order to assist policy makers in the decision of whether to pursue the shallow tunnel design,
SPO has been requested to:
Conduct an independent analysis of freight rail relocation alternatives that may be viable
in lieu of keeping the freight rail in the Kenilworth Corridor;
Conduct an independent evaluation of potential impacts to water resources that may
result from the construction and/or operation of the shallow LRT tunnels; and
Complete a survey of the existing vegetation in the Kenilworth Corridor and identify
impacts to the vegetation and identify areas suitable for planting trees and areas suitable
for planting understory vegetation or groundcover under the shallow LRT tunnel
configuration.
The results of these analyses will be shared with Project stakeholders and policy makers to
inform the decision of whether to pursue the shallow LRT tunnels in the Project scope or other
design alternative.
Scope of Work
The objective of this phase of the work is to complete an inventory of existing conditions and
identify impacts to help inform decisions on the scope of this portion of the SWLRT Project.
The following activities are planned:
SPO to conduct an inventory of the existing physical conditions within the Corridor. The
inventory shall include: location, diameter, species and condition of existing trees;
general species, quantity and condition of existing understory vegetation; and type,
condition and limits of groundcover (turf).
SPO to conduct an analysis of historic vegetation in the Corridor, surficial soil conditions
and Corridor access.
SPO to develop a graphical representation of the impacts to trees and other vegetation
within the Corridor by comparing existing conditions within the Corridor to conditions
within the corridor immediately following construction.
SPO to review available studies, reports and meeting materials related to landscape
design of the Kenilworth Corridor with the SWLRT prepared by agency led committees.
SPO to prepare a summary of the document research which identifies an understanding of
concerns and issues, establishing an overall design direction for SPO design staff to
Study Session Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 2)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 8
REV 3 October 31, 2013
DRAFT SOW
2
prepare landscape plans for the Kenilworth Corridor. This summary will be reviewed
and confirmed with City, Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB), Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District (MCWD) and County staff.
SPO to identify areas suitable for planting trees and areas suitable for planting understory
vegetation or groundcover under the shallow LRT tunnel configuration. SPO to develop a
graphical representation of this information.
SPO to review and evaluate impacts with the City, MPRB, MCWD and County staff.
SPO to prepare a draft report documenting the impacts and potential mitigation measures.
SPO to present the findings to the Project advisory committees.
SPO to develop a draft public involvement plan that includes coordination activities with
Project stakeholders and an active engagement process with community members and
businesses within the Kenilworth Corridor. The plan will identify steps to develop a
public charrette or other public engagement process to seek input to inform the landscape
design of the Kenilworth Corridor. The plan will incorporate stakeholder input as
appropriate.
Study Session Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 2)
Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 9
Area of Landscaping/Landscaping/Greenscaping Analysis1 Study Session Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 2) Title: Southwest LRT Update Page 10
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: November 12, 2013
Discussion Item: 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Long Range Financial Management Plan and 2014 – 2018 C.I.P.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action required. This report is to assist with the
Study Session discussion regarding the Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP) and
2014 – 2018 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• Is there other information that Council would like to review?
• Are the capital projects proposed for 2014 in line with Council expectations?
• Does the Council have questions about any of the capital projects proposed for 2015 - 2018?
SUMMARY: Included is information on the process involved for creating the CIP, how it is
used in the LRFMP, and how the LRFMP helps in both budgeting and long term planning.
Definitions for each fund are provided as well as some key items that are included and not
included in the CIP. Directors who have a key role in the CIP will be present to discuss some
significant projects being undertaken or proposed and answer any questions the Council may
have.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The CIP and LRFMP consider many
different funding sources and encompass many facets of daily life that the City of St. Louis Park
provides to its constituents. Therefore, it is crucial they work in conjunction with the City’s
annual budgeting process in helping to determine an appropriate property tax and HRA levy. In
addition, the utilization of these planning tools, along with following the plan set forth in them,
aids in maintaining the City’s AAA bond rating.
VISION CONSIDERATION: All Vision areas are taken into consideration and are an
important part of our budgeting process. St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and
engaged community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
CIP Report – Funding Source Summary
CIP Report – Projects and Funding Sources by Department
LRFMP Summary of Revenues and Expenditures
LRFMP All Funds - (Will be handed out Monday evening.)
Prepared by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Steve Heintz, Finance Supervisor
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Title: Long Range Financial Management Plan and 2014 – 2018 C.I.P.
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND:
Capital Replacement Program – (CIP)
Each year, starting at the end of March, staff is asked to determine the needs of the City and their
respective departments regarding purchases or construction of capital items. Generally speaking,
a capital item has a cost greater than $5,000 and a useful life of 3 years or more. For 2014 and
prior, capital needs were to be considered over the next five years at a minimum. Many
departments plan for the next 10 years and beyond in some cases, due to the significant costs or
lengthy useful lives of the assets being considered. Beginning for the 2015 CIP, all departments
will be required to plan for capital needs for the next 10 years. This will allow for better
projections in the Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP) in years 6 – 10, thereby
allowing more time to address any potential funding challenges which could help mitigate the
impact to the constituents the City serves.
As departments prepare their respective CIP’s, they are asked to provide specific information
which is input into the City’s Capital Improvement software. They are asked to consider the
importance of the capital need and classify them as follows:
1) Have to do – meaning required by mandate, to maintain a system or business need.
2) Smart to do – meaning makes sound business sense, anticipates opportunities and
takes advantage of them.
3) Would like to do – meaning if resources became available or made available, it
would make business sense but not as crucial as the Smart to do items.
Items such as name, useful life, staff contact, description, justification, cost, funding source and
budget impact are some pieces of information that staff prepare. Staff is asked to work with
other departments and especially with Accounting on items such as cost and funding source,
especially when the proposed project or purchase impacts several departments or needs to be
funded by several sources. For example, if two projects are proposed in the same area, one in
2015 related to lining a segment of sewer, and one in 2016 for the Pavement Management
Program, each department would see this and work together on efficiencies and realign project
timelines, so the project could be done at the same time to minimize disruption to traffic and the
neighborhood. Finally, every project must have a funding source and departments are
encouraged to work with Accounting to ensure an appropriate source is suggested if there are
any questions.
The first iteration of the CIP is due to Accounting by the middle of May each year usually, with
additional opportunities for revisions occurring in late July and late September or early October.
These revision periods are meant for fine tuning costs or funding sources for projects and any
possible additions or deletions of projects based on updated business needs or council direction.
Long Range Financial Management Plan – (LRFMP)
Upon submission of the CIP in the middle of May, Accounting is then able to take the
information and input the data into the LRFMP. During this process, the projects are reviewed
by funding source and year, and then are input by funding source total, not individually, into the
LRFMP. Next, each fund is looked at individually to determine if current funding projections
are adequate to fund the proposed capital items, maintain long-term sustainability and meet
suggested fund or cash balance guidelines. Where there are possible challenges, Accounting
looks at funds that may have potential available resources to reallocate, possible changes in
funding, such as debt issuance or revenue enhancements, or delaying/reducing/eliminating some
proposed capital items. The latter occurs through discussions with the City Manager and the
Study Session Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Title: Long Range Financial Management Plan and 2014 – 2018 C.I.P.
affected department(s) to determine the best course of action for the City. Adjustments continue
to occur within funds regarding revenues, costs, timing and scope of capital needs until deemed
reasonable to present to the City Council usually during the mid-summer months.
Other Considerations
The CIP, LRFMP, City Budget and utility rates processes work together in steps to provide the
City Council with a more comprehensive picture from which to make decisions in terms of
property tax levy and business needs within the City. The CIP is the first step, in which capital
needs and costs are prepared. This then flows into the LRFMP, which allows staff to analyze
and suggest where and how capital needs will be paid from, if additional resources need to be
provided, or reductions in the CIP need to occur. While Accounting is updating and analyzing
the LRFMP, other departments are working on information regarding significant changes in
business and staffing needs. Once submitted, Accounting staff are able look at that information,
make projections on personnel costs and proposed capital needs to provide an estimate on the
proposed property tax levy to the City Manager. At this point, the City Manager reviews the
proposed property tax levy, the overall big picture plan of City capital and operational needs, and
any relevant future considerations to determine the appropriate property tax levy to submit to the
City Council for their consideration. At this point, based on Council direction, more adjustments
are made if needed, until the Preliminary Property Tax Levy is adopted the first week of
September. After this, adjustments can continue to be made until the Final Property Tax Levy
adoption occurs in mid-December.
FUND DEFINITIONS:
To help facilitate the discussion on the LRFMP, staff thought it would be beneficial to provide
definitions of the funds in the LRFMP, in addition to some basic information on each fund. The
following definitions are in the order of the LRFMP document:
Cable Television Fund - Produces and broadcasts all cable television programming for cable
channels 14, 15, 16, 17 & 96. Revenues are generated from Comcast franchise fees. This
franchise agreement is scheduled to end in 2021. The City also received a Time Warner Grant
that is used to purchase equipment.
Police & Fire Pension Fund – Created from overfunded portion of the state mandated PERF
pension that was refunded back to the City. These funds can only be used for capital needs and
certain personnel costs related to police or fire purposes. These one-time proceeds have been
and will continue to be used primarily for capital purchases. For example, the fund contributed
just under $3 million to the Fire Stations and will be utilized for the purchase of the dispatch
hardware and software.
Housing Rehabilitation Fund - Primarily covers costs for programs related to maintaining
quality and diverse housing stock within the City. The programs in this Fund are funded through
the administration fee the City receives from Private Activity Revenue Bonds and some Park
Center TIF dollars. The Housing Improvement Areas (HIA’s) are also shown in this Fund, with
the fees from each HIA covering the costs of each project.
Development Fund - Used for general City or EDA projects. The fund was created from excess
tax increment revenues from pre-1979 districts when the rules on tax increment were much less
restrictive. The current sources of revenue are interest income and rent from the Park Nicollet
Parking Ramp. This fund is used to help finance projects by loaning money to other funds, land
purchases or other short-term EDA projects. The Development Fund is essentially a non-
Study Session Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Title: Long Range Financial Management Plan and 2014 – 2018 C.I.P.
renewable fund that cannot be replenished from excess increment any longer due to more strict
rules regarding the use of tax increment.
HRA Levy - This fund is to be used for infrastructure construction in redevelopment areas and
qualifying housing programs. The revenue source for this Fund is the HRA Tax Levy. This Fund
has financed both the Hwy 7 & Wooddale project and the on-going Hwy 7 & Louisiana project.
Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund - Pays for the cost of project construction and is
repaid through special assessments. This fund is also used as a short-term borrowing mechanism
to other City funds.
Park Improvement Fund - This fund covers capital expenditures for the replacement of capital
in parks and improvement of park facilities. The primary sources of revenue are property taxes
and Park Dedication Fees.
Pavement Management Fund - Funds expenditures related to street reconstruction and chip-
sealing. The revenue source for this fund is Centerpointe and Xcel franchise fees charged to its
customers within the City.
Capital Replacement Fund – Funds technology, buildings, and equipment capital expenditures.
The primary funding sources are property taxes and charges to other funds for equipment
replacement. The Local Government Aid allocated by the State for 2014 and 2015 is also in this
Fund. This fund also includes the additional dollars the Council has levied for future capital
projects, which is tracked separately, and is shown at the bottom of the page on the worksheet of
the Capital Replacement Fund plan.
Water Utility Fund - This fund is to be used for all provisions of water services including
administration, billing and collection, Reilly, maintenance, operations and capital. The revenue
for this fund is primarily from charges for services. Revenue received from the Water Access
Charge is also tracked in this fund.
Sewer Utility Fund - This fund is to be used for all provisions of sewer services including
administration, billing and collection, maintenance, operations and capital. The revenue for this
fund is primarily from charges for services.
Solid Waste Utility Fund - This fund is to be used for all provisions of revenues and expenses
related to the collection, disposal and recycling of residential solid waste. This fund also includes
the new Organics collection. The revenue for this Fund is primarily from charges for services.
Storm Water Utility Fund - This fund is to be used for all provisions of storm water including
administration, billing and collection, maintenance, operations and capital. The revenue for this
fund is primarily from charges for services.
Uninsured Loss Fund - This fund covers self-insured workers comp claims, property and
liability claim deductibles that are underwritten by the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance
Trust.
Benefits Administration Fund - This fund covers the cost of insurance, unemployment, flex
leave payouts, and tuition reimbursement. It is partially funded through property tax dollars.
Study Session Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 5
Title: Long Range Financial Management Plan and 2014 – 2018 C.I.P.
DISCUSSION ON SELECT FUNDS:
Park Improvement Fund – This fund receives $810,000 per year in property tax revenue and
also receives park dedication dollars. The park dedication dollars vary significantly from year to
year based on development and redevelopment occurring within the City, but it is estimated to
receive approximately $250,000 per year going forward. This fund is utilized for projects and
purchases related to the recreation program for capital needs. In 2016, it is anticipated that the
Rec. Center will need to have the Ice Arena reconstructed related to the replacement of the R22
refrigerant which is required to be phased out, dehumidification system and other capital items
replaced. This project is estimated at $4,800,000 and currently it is anticipated bonds would be
issued to finance the project. If a Community Center is built, the project would be combined
with the arena reconstruction with bonds still being the funding source.
In addition, this fund has dollars budgeted related to the Tree Reforestation Plan. Funds for this
plan were received from the Excess Land Program that began in 2005. In 2009, the City Council
was informed that there would be approximately $500,000 available for the Tree Reforestation
Plan. Based on market conditions, much higher than anticipated administration costs, and sale
proceeds being split among all taxing jurisdictions in some cases, the City hasn’t realized the full
$500,000 in net proceeds from the program it was anticipating. There are still several parcels
that are in several different stages of being closed and when the deals close, those proceeds will
be deposited into the fund. Therefore, in looking at the Park Improvement Fund in the long term,
staff has determined that this fund can absorb the difference related to Excess Land Program,
thereby still allowing the $500,000 to be spent on reforestation within the City.
Pavement Management Fund – Through the end of 2012, property tax dollars and franchise
fees were the revenues utilized to pay for the projects within the fund. Based on franchise fee
adjustments the City Council approved in 2009, 2011 and 2013, this fund is now fully funded
from franchise fee revenues for pavement management projects. By operating this fund, the City
is able to avoid having to assess benefitting property owners when work is done on City owned
streets. As Engineering continues to look at the Pavement Management Program, additional
recommendations on franchise fees may be brought to the City Council. Past practice has been
to review this every other year, with 2015 being the next possible year for any adjustments to
take effect.
Capital Replacement Fund – This fund is a consolidation of the Equipment Replacement,
Municipal Building and Technology Replacement Funds that occurred at the end of 2008. This
fund is supported primarily from property taxes, equipment replacement charges to departments
and transfers in from the Permanent Improvement Revolving (PIR) Fund. This fund has been
essentially a pay-as-you-go for regular capital needs, and as such, not required the issuance of
debt, thereby keeping costs of capital needs down. The Capital Replacement Fund has
experienced some long-term sustainability challenges over the past several years, but fortunately
these challenges were far enough in advance due to long range planning that they were able to be
solved while still operating under the current pay-as-you -go model. Currently, the City is
scheduled to receive $458,807 in Local Government Aid (LGA) in 2014 and 2015 from the State
of Minnesota and these dollars are proposed to go to this fund. Staff is continuing to look at
ways to keep the cost of capital needs down, from forming an equipment working group to
exploring possibly leasing of certain types of equipment too, while still providing quality and
timely service delivery.
Study Session Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 3) Page 6
Title: Long Range Financial Management Plan and 2014 – 2018 C.I.P.
HRA Levy Fund – This fund’s primary source of revenue is property taxes generated from the
HRA Levy. By law, these revenues are restricted to essentially infrastructure needs and
qualifying housing programs throughout the City. This levy’s maximum amount is based upon
the estimated market value within the City to arrive at an amount available to be levied. Due to
the significant capital needs related to infrastructure within the City, the City Council has elected
to levy the maximum amount each year, which generates approximately $950,000 for 2014.
This fund will be the City’s primary source of revenue for its share of Highway 7 and Louisiana
as well as other projects proposed within the City. Therefore, staff will be recommending that
the City Council continue to set the HRA Levy at the maximum amount in the upcoming years to
fund projects that are scheduled in the CIP.
Development Fund –This fund is used to help finance projects by loaning money to other funds,
such as for Housing Improvement Areas or the HRA Levy Fund, land purchases or other short-
term EDA projects. In the past, interest earnings were significant enough to offset personnel
costs and services and other charges. Now as interest earnings within the market have declined
significantly, this is no longer the case and principle within the fund is being spent down. Staff
is going to look at options to avoid any significant spend down of principle, so this fund is
available as an option for opportunities that may arise in the future.
Storm Water Fund – This fund has a rather robust list of projects, some of which are required
and some that may possibly be more of a quality of life opportunity, and as such, current user
charges are not sufficient to cover the costs of these proposed capital projects. Therefore, user
charges are being proposed to increase rather significantly over the next 5 years and debt will
also need to be issued if Council would like to proceed with the plan as proposed. If some of the
projects are moved back, the proposed increases can be spread out a little bit more, helping to
reduce the near term impact on customers. Currently, debt is going to be issued in 2014 for
approximately $7,500,000 and for $2,000,000 in 2019 to pay for much of the capital projects
proposed during that time. Based on this plan, user charges will increase during that time and
then be able to remain quite steady in 2019 and beyond as the plan is proposed currently.
WHAT IS NOT IN THE CIP AND LRFMP:
As the current CIP and LRFMP are proposed, there are not costs built in for a Community Center
or a Sidewalks and Trails Program. As Council has seen before, these projects would be paid for
through the issuance of debt over a period of years depending on the overall final costs of each
project. Since the revenue source for the bonds would be from property taxes, information has
been presented previously on what the approximate impact would be to a property owner. As
more information becomes available and costs are firmed up, staff can add these into the CIP and
LRFMP.
PROCESS FOR THIS EVENING:
For this evening, staff would like to suggest the following schedule for the discussion:
1) CIP overview of reports – 5 minutes – Steve and Brian
2) Key CIP items and philosophy presented by each Director – 5 minutes maximum
each (20 total) – Brian H., Cindy, Clint and Debra
3) LRFMP summary presentation, discussion on 6 select funds as discussed in the report
above and next steps council would like to see – 35 minutes – Steve and Brian
Capital Improvement Program
City of St. Louis Park, MN
FUNDING SOURCE SUMMARY
2014 thru 2018
TotalSource2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Cable TV - Time Warner Equipment Grant 375,00049,800 265,300 36,550 9,250 14,100
Capital Replacement Fund 14,706,7043,438,659 2,714,415 2,536,423 1,992,227 4,024,980
E-911 Funds 185,000110,000 75,000
EDA Development Fund 1,360,00060,000 815,000 485,000
G.O. Bonds 24,911,0001,444,800 9,816,350 9,691,350 741,000 3,217,500
Hennepin County 177,500177,500
Housing Authority 60,00060,000
HRA Levy 1,012,5421,012,542
Met Council Grant 27,000,00012,000,000 15,000,000
Municipal State Aid 4,470,692588,314 2,174,578 395,000 212,800 1,100,000
Park Improvement Fund 10,545,0001,677,000 935,000 5,722,000 1,448,000 763,000
Pavement Management Fund 8,813,0331,973,160 1,429,815 2,244,456 1,503,345 1,662,257
Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund 198,000198,000
Police & Fire Pension 1,450,500610,000 20,000 700,000 120,500
PW Engineering Budget 192,50097,500 95,000
PW Operations Budget 1,724,682336,800 339,000 341,218 344,788 362,876
Sanitary Sewer Utility 2,591,062370,652 1,545,000 235,410 220,000 220,000
Solid Waste Utility 55,00010,000 45,000
Special Assessments 2,040,586121,000 235,000 158,000 500,000 1,026,586
State of Minnesota 900,000900,000
Stormwater Utility 9,935,0006,071,000 1,625,000 1,105,000 703,000 431,000
Tax Increment - Elmwood 3,826,5093,826,509
Tax Increment Financing 75,00075,000
Water Utility 3,050,000431,000 970,000 891,000 625,000 133,000
29,702,185 39,122,458 29,380,458 8,374,410 13,075,799 119,655,310GRAND TOTAL
Tuesday, November 05, 2013
Study Session Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Long Range Financial Management Plan and 2014 – 2018 C.I.P.Page 7
Capital Improvement Program
City of St. Louis Park, MN
PROJECTS & FUNDING SOURCES BY DEPARTMENT
2014 2018thru
Total2014 2015 2016 2017 2018DepartmentProject# Priority
Buildings
1,738,000735,000 408,000 165,000 200,000 230,000Capital Replacement Fund
60,00060,000EDA Development Fund
60,00060,000Housing Authority
81,00063,000 18,000Pavement Management Fund
180,00090,000 90,000PW Engineering Budget
2013CH1 420,000330,000 90,000City Hall 2nd Remodeling 1
2013CH2 20,00020,000City Hall Garage Unit Heaters 1
2013CH5 7,0007,000City Hall East Prkng Lot - chip seal and re-stripe 1
2013PD/CH2 45,00045,000Police Station/City Hall Fire Alarm Panel 1
2013PD1 100,000100,000Police Station Exterior Finishes and Repair 1
2013PD2 65,00065,000Police Squad Parking Lot 1
2013PD4 18,00018,000Police Station - HVAC Computer upgrade 1
2014CH 25,00025,000CH 2nd & 3rd Floor Space Planning Design Study 1
2014CH1 310,000310,000City Hall 3rd Floor Covering and Furniture 1
2014CH3 12,00012,000City Hall Recoat Pedistrian Bridge 1
2014MSC1 45,00045,000MSC - Chip Seal and Re-Stripe parking lot 1
2014MSC2 45,00015,000 15,000 15,000MSC & Fire Stations CO Sensor Replacement 1
2014MSC3 40,00040,000Roof Mounted 40kw Photovoltaic Panel System n/a
2014PD1 240,000240,000Police Station EOC AV System & remodel breakroom 3
2014WNC1 11,00011,000Westwood Nature Center Parking/Driveway Seal Coat 1
2015CH2 30,00030,000City Hall Garage Overhead Doors 1
2015MSC 48,00048,000MSC 1st Bay Floor - Repair and coating finish 3
2015PD1 35,00035,000Police Station Seal for Air Infiltration 3
2016CH2 100,000100,000City Hall Roof Top AC Units (two units)1
2016CH4 10,00010,000City Hall Chip, Seal, Stripe Main Parking Lot 1
2016FD1 4,0004,000FS #1 Chip, seal, stripe both prking lots 3
2016FD2 4,0004,000FS #2 Chip, seal, stripe both prking lots 3
2016PD1 70,00070,000Police Station/MSC - FOB controller replacement 1
2016WNC1 70,00070,000Westwood Nature Center Flooring 1
2017CH1 70,00070,000Council Chambers Carpeting/Furnishings 1
2017PD2 60,00060,000Police Station replace boiler system 1
2018PD2 180,000180,000Police Station - Replace office furnishings 3
2018PD3 35,00035,000Police- Replace ceiling tiles, restroom countertop 3
2,119,0001,008,000 498,000 183,000 200,000 230,000Buildings Total
Tuesday, November 05, 2013
Study Session Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Long Range Financial Management Plan and 2014 – 2018 C.I.P.Page 8
Total2014 2015 2016 2017 2018DepartmentProject# Priority
2,119,0001,008,000 498,000 183,000 200,000 230,000Buildings Total
Cable TV
375,00049,800 265,300 36,550 9,250 14,100Cable TV - Time Warner Equipment Grant
375,00049,800 265,300 36,550 9,250 14,100Cable TV Total
TV-201401 500500DVD Recorders 1
TV-201402 30,00030,000Slow-motion replay 1
TV-201403 70070012-channel audio mixer 1
TV-201404 7,5007,500Digital camcorders 1
TV-201405 10,20010,200NLE stations 1
TV-201406 900900Microphones1
TV-201501 120,000120,000Van Cameras 3
TV-201502 20,00020,000Van Camera Cases 3
TV-201503 13,00013,000Van Camera Cables 3
TV-201504 15,00015,000LCD monitors 3
TV-201505 2,5002,500Hard-Drive Video Recorder 1
TV201506 6,0006,000Converter for Recorder 1
TV-201507 36,00036,000Tripods for On Location 1
TV-201508 16,50016,500Video Switcher 1
TV-201509 4,2004,200SD/HD converter 1
TV-201510 1,5001,500DVD recorders 1
TV-201511 1,5001,500Tripods1
TV-201512 900900Unit pro light kit 1
TV-201513 28,20028,200Playback systems 1
TV-201601 750750Announcer Headsets 3
TV-201602 500500Shotgun mics 1
TV-201603 300300Hand-held mics 1
TV-201604 35,00035,000Replacement edit systems 1
TV-201701 2,0002,000Wireless mic systems 1
TV-201702 7,0007,000CG1
TV-201703 250250CD Player 1
TV201801 2,0002,000300-foot audio snake & reel 1
TV-201801 300300Announcer Monitor 3
TV-201802 40040050-foot audio snake 1
TV-201803 1,5001,500Behringer Audio Equipment 1
TV-201804 7,5007,500Camcorders1
TV-201805 1,5001,500DVD recorders 1
TV-201806 900900Unit pro light kit 1
375,00049,800 265,300 36,550 9,250 14,100Cable TV Total
Community Development
Tuesday, November 05, 2013
Study Session Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Long Range Financial Management Plan and 2014 – 2018 C.I.P.Page 9
Total2014 2015 2016 2017 2018DepartmentProject# Priority
CD-002 00CD-Sidewalks 5
00Community Development Total
Fire
100,00010,000 30,000 10,000 50,000Capital Replacement Fund
100,00010,000 30,000 10,000 50,000Fire Total
20134090 40,00020,000 20,000Outside Warning Sirens 1
2013F2 30,00010,000 10,000 10,000Thermal Imagers 1
2014F1 00SCBA Replacement 1
2023F1 30,00030,000Hydraulic Rescue Tool 3
100,00010,000 30,000 10,000 50,000Fire Total
Parks & Recreation
20071010TR 300,00060,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000Tree Replacement 3
20130080 15,00010,000 5,000Oak Hill Park Northern Lights (LED)3
20130220 30,00030,000Trail Sealcoat 3
20131010PW 100,00020,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000Playground Woodchips 1
20140010 65,00065,000Cedar Knoll Park/Carlson Field Dugout,Storage,Conc 3
20140020 300,000300,000Dakota Park Baseball Field Renovation 1
20140030 10,00010,000Louisiana Oaks Park Parking Lot Seal Coat 3
20140040 180,000180,000Playground Eqpt Repl-Dakota & Louisiana Oaks Parks 1
20140050 15,00015,000Rec Center & Aquatic Park ADA Compliance 1
20140060 18,00018,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Deck Chair Replacement 1
20140070 260,000260,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Pool Resurface 1
20140080 51,00051,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Mechanical Updates 1
20140090 90,00090,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Waterslide Resurface 1
20140110 6,0006,000Rec Center Roof Repair 1
20140120 30,00030,000Rec Center Mens Locker-Bath Room Remodel 3
20140130 50,00050,000Rec Center West Arena & Commons Painting 3
20140140 40,00040,000Trail Restoration-Lamplighter Pond 1
20140150 40,00040,000Westwood Hills NC Boardwalk Decking Replacement 3
20140160 10,00010,000Wolfe Lake-Cattail Pond Re-landscaping 3
20140170 50,00050,000Wolfe Park Amphitheater Retaining Wall/Pavers 3
20140180 75,00075,000Rec Center West Arena Locker-Bath Room Remodel 3
20140190 252,000252,000Louisiana Oaks North Parking Lot Addition 3
20140220 55,00055,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Water Features 1
20141010MC 000000Minnehaha Creek Trail Repayment n/a
20150010 110,000110,000Ainsworth Park Field Restoration 1
20150020 25,00025,000Aquila Park Tennis Court Resurface 3
Tuesday, November 05, 2013
Study Session Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Long Range Financial Management Plan and 2014 – 2018 C.I.P.Page 10
Total2014 2015 2016 2017 2018DepartmentProject# Priority
20150030 15,00015,000Court Resurface (bb) Mkda V & Penn Pks 3
20150040 14,00014,000Court Resurface(tns)-Bass Lk & Northside Pks 3
20150060 11,00011,000Minikahda Park Backstop Replacement 1
20150070 180,000180,000Playground Eqpt Repl-Nelson & Wolfe Parks 1
20150090 60,00060,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Landscape Replacement 3
20150110 15,00015,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Pumps Rebuild 1
20150120 15,00015,000Rec Center Building Re-Keying 3
20150130 175,000175,000Rec Center Exterior Building Repair 3
20150140 35,00035,000Rec Center Gallery & Hallway Flooring 1
20150150 50,00050,000Skate Park Equipment Replacement 3
20150160 30,00030,000Trail Recon. Along CLR - Quentin Ave to Ridge Dr 1
20150170 20,00020,000Westwood Hills NC Wildflower Trail Restoration 3
20150180 100,000100,000Wolfe Park Boardwalk Replacement (south end)3
20160010 60,00060,000Carpenter Park Ball Field Fence Replacement 3
20160020 12,00012,000Cedar Knoll Park/Carlson Field Scoreboard n/a
20160030 5,0005,000Court Resurface (bb/Tns)-Browndale Park 3
20160040 150,000150,000Playground Eqpt Repl-Blackstone,Justad&Jersey 1
20160070 45,00045,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Drp Slide & Dvg Brd Repl 3
20160080 15,00015,000Rec Center Banquet Room Carpet & Floor Replacement 3
20160110 4,800,0004,800,000Rec Center Ice Arena Reconstruction 1
20160120 110,000110,000Rec Center Parking Lot Resurface 3
20160130 125,000125,000Trail Lights (LED) at Shelard Park 3
20160140 40,00040,000Trails (seal coat) Bass Lake, OH & Wolfe Pks 1
20160150 50,00050,000Westwood Hills NC Ravine Bridge Replacement 1
20160160 55,00055,000Westwood Hills NC Storage Garage 5
20160170 105,000105,000Rec Center Rubber Floor Replacement - East & West 1
20160180 50,00050,000Rec Center Fire Alarm System Upgrade 3
20160190 10,00010,000Rec Center West Arena Press Area 5
20170010 450,000450,000Aquila Park Fields 1-4 Lights and Poles Upgrade 1
20170020 85,00085,000Browndale Park Hockey Rink Lights 5
20170040 60,00060,000Oak Hill Park Splash Pad Feature Replacement 3
20170050 35,00035,000Parking Lots Mill&Ovrlay-Dkta, Fern Hill & OH Pks 1
20170060 200,000200,000Playground Eqpt Repl-BassLk,Rainbow,TL&Webster 1
20170070 20,00020,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Pump Rebuild 1
20170080 130,000130,000Rec Center Boiler Replacement 3
20170090 250,000250,000Rec Center Roof Rplc - East Arena 1
20170110 17,00017,000Rec Center Programming Office Carpet 3
20170120 50,00050,000Victoria Lake Parking Lot 3
20170130 6,0006,000Westwood Hills NC Climbing Rock 5
20170140 10,00010,000Westwood Hills NC North Staircase Overlook 1
20170160 20,00020,000Westwood Hills NC-Prairie Dock Rebuild 3
20180010 10,00010,000Court Resurface (BB) Aquila, Roxbury & Shelard 3
20180030 125,000125,000Parking Lot Resfc-Aq, Crlsn,IscW,Nlsn,Nrthsde,WW 1
20180040 250,000250,000Playground Eqpt Repl-Brchwd,Nrthsde,Rxbry&Shlrd 1
Tuesday, November 05, 2013
Study Session Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Long Range Financial Management Plan and 2014 – 2018 C.I.P.Page 11
Total2014 2015 2016 2017 2018DepartmentProject# Priority
8,082,7041,544,959 1,365,715 1,503,723 908,527 2,759,780Capital Replacement Fund
10,545,0001,677,000 935,000 5,722,000 1,448,000 763,000Park Improvement Fund
18,627,7043,221,959 2,300,715 7,225,723 2,356,527 3,522,780Parks & Recreation Total
20180050 30,00030,000Rec Center Banquet & Gallery Remodel 1
20180060 120,000120,000Rec Center Door Replacement (Front & Arena)1
20180070 100,000100,000Rec Center Upstairs Bthrm&Ctrng Kitchn Remodel 3
20180080 30,00030,000Westwood Hills NC Native Restoration 3
20180090 8,0008,000Westwood Hills NC Painting & Staining 5
20180110 10,00010,000Birchwood Park Stain Building 3
E - XX01 8,082,7041,544,959 1,365,715 1,503,723 908,527 2,759,780Annual Equipment Replacement Program 1
18,627,7043,221,959 2,300,715 7,225,723 2,356,527 3,522,780Parks & Recreation Total
Police
69,00010,700 10,700 10,700 10,700 26,200Capital Replacement Fund
60,00060,000E-911 Funds
129,00070,700 10,700 10,700 10,700 26,200Police Total
PD - 1 69,00010,700 10,700 10,700 10,700 26,200Laser/Radar and Message Board 3
PD - 2 60,00060,000911 Server Replacement 1
129,00070,700 10,700 10,700 10,700 26,200Police Total
Public Works
20052000 3,188,0003,188,000Street Project - TH 100 Reconstruction 1
20082500 300,000300,000Traffic Signal Project - W36th St @ Xenwood Ave 5
20121300 2,000,0002,000,000Street Project - Wooddale Ave Reconstruction 5
20121301 2,039,0512,039,051Street Project - W36th Street Reconstruction 5
20121302 500,000500,000Traffic Signal Project - Wooddale @ W36th St 5
20131000 1,598,1601,598,160Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 2)1
20131100 515,000515,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Walker)1
20140001 300,000300,000Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 6)1
20140003 82,50082,500Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs 1
20140004 62,50062,500Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 1
20140006 35,00035,000Storm Water Project - Annual CB Repairs 1
20140200 75,00075,000Street Project - Cedar Lake Road Improvements 5
20141000 1,184,8151,184,815Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 3)1
20141100 500,000500,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Edgewood)1
20141101 340,000340,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Beltline Blvd)1
20141200 200,000200,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement 1
20141201 5,826,0005,826,000Storm Water Proj - Bass Lake Preserve Rehab 1
20141400 316,000316,000Water Project - Watermain Replacement 1
Tuesday, November 05, 2013
Study Session Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Long Range Financial Management Plan and 2014 – 2018 C.I.P.Page 12
Total2014 2015 2016 2017 2018DepartmentProject# Priority
20142200 75,55275,552Sanitary Sewer Proj. - Mainline Rehab (Area 2)1
20142301 127,600127,600Sanitary Sewer - LS #14 Upgrade 1
20150001 265,000265,000Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 7)1
20150003 82,50082,500Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs 1
20150004 37,50037,500Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 1
20150006 35,00035,000Storm Water Project - Annual CB Repairs 1
20150100 1,000,0001,000,000Street Project - TH 169 Noise Wall 3
20151000 1,996,3001,996,300Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 4)1
20151100 420,000420,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (CLR / Flag)1
20151101 150,000150,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Ottawa)1
20151102 1,139,5781,139,578Bridge Project - Louisiana Ave @ Minnehaha Creek 1
20151200 175,000175,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab (Area 3)1
20151201 770,000770,000Storm Water Project - Oregon Pond Basin Rehab 1
20151400 25,00025,000Water Project - Watermain Replacement (Area 3)1
20152200 150,000150,000Sanitary Sewer Proj. - Mainline Rehab (Area 3)1
20152300 57,50057,500Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #9 & FM Rehab 1
20152301 85,41085,410Sanitary Sewer Proj. - Forcemain Rehabs 1
20160001 248,674248,674Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 8)1
20160003 82,50082,500Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs 1
20160004 37,50037,500Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 1
20160006 35,00035,000Storm Water Project - Annual CB Repairs 1
20161000 1,269,0851,269,085Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 5)1
20161100 395,000395,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Pennsylvania)1
20161200 200,000200,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab (Area 4)1
20161201 870,000870,000Storm Water Project - Lou Oaks Pond Rehab 1
20161400 291,000291,000Water Project - Watermain Replacement (Area 4)1
20161500 600,000600,000Water Project - Recoat Elevated Water Tower #2 1
20162200 150,000150,000Sanitary Sewer Proj. - Mainline Rehab (Area 4)1
20162300 350,000350,000Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #1 & FM Rehab 1
20170001 253,648253,648Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 1)1
20170003 82,50082,500Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs 1
20170004 37,50037,500Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 1
20170006 35,00035,000Storm Water Project - Annual CB Repairs 1
20171000 1,423,8121,423,812Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 6)1
20171100 212,800212,800Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (W28th St)1
20171101 360,000360,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Louisiana Ave)1
20171200 100,000100,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab (Area 5)1
20171201 130,000130,000Storm Water Project - Sumter Pond Rehab 1
20171202 438,000438,000Storm Water Project - Browndale Pond Rehab 1
20171400 25,00025,000Water Project - Watermain Replacement (Area 5)1
20171500 600,000600,000Water Project - Recoat Reservoir 2 @ WTP#6 1
20172200 150,000150,000Sanitary Sewer Proj. - Mainline Rehab (Area 5)1
20172300 70,00070,000Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #13 & FM Rehab 1
20180001 258,721258,721Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 2)1
Tuesday, November 05, 2013
Study Session Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Long Range Financial Management Plan and 2014 – 2018 C.I.P.Page 13
Total2014 2015 2016 2017 2018DepartmentProject# Priority
240,000240,000EDA Development Fund
24,911,0001,444,800 9,816,350 9,691,350 741,000 3,217,500G.O. Bonds
177,500177,500Hennepin County
1,012,5421,012,542HRA Levy
27,000,00012,000,000 15,000,000Met Council Grant
4,470,692588,314 2,174,578 395,000 212,800 1,100,000Municipal State Aid
8,732,0331,910,160 1,429,815 2,226,456 1,503,345 1,662,257Pavement Management Fund
198,000198,000Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund
12,5007,500 5,000PW Engineering Budget
1,704,682336,800 339,000 341,218 344,788 342,876PW Operations Budget
2,436,062260,652 1,500,000 235,410 220,000 220,000Sanitary Sewer Utility
2,040,586121,000 235,000 158,000 500,000 1,026,586Special Assessments
900,000900,000State of Minnesota
9,880,0006,061,000 1,580,000 1,105,000 703,000 431,000Stormwater Utility
3,826,5093,826,509Tax Increment - Elmwood
20180003 82,50082,500Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs 1
20180004 37,50037,500Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 1
20180006 35,00035,000Storm Water Project - Annual CB Repairs 1
20181100 610,000610,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Shelard Pkwy)1
20181102 991,586991,586Bridge Project - W 37th St @ Minnehaha Creek 1
20181200 100,000100,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab (Area 6)1
20181201 158,000158,000Lamplighter Pond Rehab 1
20181202 138,000138,000Storm Water Project - Otten Pond Rehab 1
20181400 123,000123,000Water Project - Watermain Replacement (Area 6)1
20182200 150,000150,000Sanitary Sewer Proj. - Mainline Rehab (Area 6)1
20182300 70,00070,000Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #5 1
20211102 228,314228,314Bridge Project - W 36th St @ Minnehaha Creek 1
M - XX06 228,50041,000 43,000 47,500 49,000 48,000Traffic Signal Maint. Proj - Repl Control Cabinets 1
M - XX07 56,00010,800 11,000 11,200 11,400 11,600Traffic Signal Maint. Project - Paint Signals 1
M - XX08 50,00010,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000Retaining Wall Maint. Project - Wall Repair 1
M - XX10 679,000142,000 135,000 134,000 135,000 133,000Street Light Project - System Replacement 1
M - XX13 424,000121,000 110,000 158,000 35,000PW Parking Lot Rehabilitation Project 1
SWT - 2013 993,300993,300Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway Installations in 2013 5
SWT - 2014 451,500451,500Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway Installations in 2014 5
SWT - 2015 9,691,3509,691,350Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway Installations in 2015 5
SWT - 2016 9,691,3509,691,350Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway Installations in 2016 5
SWT - 2017 741,000741,000Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway Installations in 2017 5
SWT - 2018 3,217,5003,217,500Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway Installations in 2018 5
TEMP-0012 180,000180,000Street Project - Excelsior Blvd Resurfacing 1
TEMP-0015 27,010,00012,005,000 15,005,000Sanitary Sewer Proj. - MCES Hopkins Interceptor 1
90,497,10623,298,726 34,342,743 19,882,485 4,849,933 8,123,219Public Works Total
Tuesday, November 05, 2013
Study Session Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Long Range Financial Management Plan and 2014 – 2018 C.I.P.Page 14
Total2014 2015 2016 2017 2018DepartmentProject# Priority
75,00075,000Tax Increment Financing
2,880,000316,000 925,000 891,000 625,000 123,000Water Utility
90,497,10623,298,726 34,342,743 19,882,485 4,849,933 8,123,219Public Works Total
Technology
20134050 27,00027,000Facilities: City Hall Cameras 3
ACCT-1 80,00016,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000ACCT- Insight Budgeting Annual Maintenance 3
TRF-001 500,000100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000IT: On-going Hardware/Telephone Adds & Replacement 1
TRF-002 750,000150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000IT: On-going Software Adds & Replacement 1
TRF-003 500,000100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000IT: On-going Network Adds & Replacement 1
TRF-111 660,00060,000 600,000Police/Fire: 800 MHz Radio/Console Replacements 1
TRF-215 300,000300,000OR: Asset Mgmt Software 3
TRF-220 125,00025,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000IT:Hosted E-Mail/VMWare/Web Relays/Archive/Backups 3
TRF-221 10,00010,000OR: Point of Sale Equipment Replacements 3
TRF-222 6,0006,000Assessing: Wireless Equipment for Field Work 3
TRF-307 30,00030,000IT: Fiber Conduit - West End Fr. Rd, Gamble, Utica 3
TRF-308 20,00020,000IR: City Hall Production Copiers 3
TRF-309 30,00030,000OR: MSC Copiers (2)3
TRF-310 75,00075,000Fire / Police: Dispatch Voice Recorders 1
TRF-313 20,00010,000 10,000IT: Wireless Hotspots 3
TRF-314 50,00050,000Police / Rec Center / Nature Center: Copiers 3
TRF-315 100,000100,000Police: Mobile Replacements 1
TRF-316 20,00010,000 10,000Fire: Firehouse Web / Inspections iPads 3
TRF-321 205,000205,000Admin Serv: Financial / HR/Payroll App Replacement 1
TRF-335 100,000100,000IT: Telephone System Upgrade 3
TRF-342 25,00010,000 15,000Fire: EOC Computer / Phone Equipment 3
TRF-343 5,0005,000IT: Public Kiosks (City Hall, other sites)1
TRF-345 30,00015,000 15,000Admin Serv: Council Laptops / Tablets 3
TRF-347 25,00025,000IT: Windows / Office / Tablet Training 3
TRF-348 55,00055,000OR: Nature & Rec Centers Surveillance Cameras 3
TRF-352 8,0008,000OR: Square Rigger Mobile Devices 1
TRF-355 75,00015,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000IR / Communications: Reverse 911 - ParkAlert 3
TRF-356 10,00010,000Eng: HP Scanner / Plotter / Copier 3
TRF-400 125,00025,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000IT: Network Switches 1
TRF-501 225,000225,000IT: Server Farm Tape Lib/UPS/DR/SAN 1
TRF-503 100,000100,000Fire: Stations Media Package 3
TRF-506 75,00075,000OR: Class / E-Connect (Parks) Replacement 1
TRF-507 21,00021,000Insp: Permits / E-Permits System Replacement 1
TRF-508 23,00023,000Police: Jail Cameras 1
TRF-509 12,00012,000Police: Exterior Cameras 1
TRF-510 30,00010,000 20,000IR/Facilities: Conference Room A/V Upgrades 5
TRF-511 1,000,000200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000IT: Tablet / Smartphone Hardware and Services 5
TRF-513 50,00050,000Fire / Police: Dispatch 800 MHz Backup 3
Tuesday, November 05, 2013
Study Session Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Long Range Financial Management Plan and 2014 – 2018 C.I.P.Page 15
Total2014 2015 2016 2017 2018DepartmentProject# Priority
4,717,0001,138,000 900,000 847,000 823,000 1,009,000Capital Replacement Fund
125,00050,000 75,000E-911 Funds
1,060,000575,000 485,000EDA Development Fund
1,450,500610,000 20,000 700,000 120,500Police & Fire Pension
20,00020,000PW Operations Budget
155,000110,000 45,000Sanitary Sewer Utility
55,00010,000 45,000Solid Waste Utility
55,00010,000 45,000Stormwater Utility
170,000115,000 45,000 10,000Water Utility
7,807,5002,043,000 1,675,000 2,032,000 898,000 1,159,500Technology Total
TRF-515 10,00010,000Utilities: SCADA Solution 5
TRF-516 20,00020,000OR: AVL 5
TRF-551 550,000550,000Police: New CAD/RMS/Mobile Suite 5
TRF-552 30,00015,000 15,000IT: Plotter Replacements 3
TRF-553 50,00050,000OR: Rec Center PA / Sound 3
TRF-555 25,00025,000IT: Fire 1 / Rec Ctr / 511 Fiber Redundancy 3
TRF-556 30,00030,000Police: Texa-Tonka COP Shop Fiber Connection 3
TRF-561 5,5005,500Police: Booking and Intox Room Cameras (2)3
TRF-562 55,00055,000Police: Dispatch Camera Viewing Workstations 5
TRF-565 45,00045,000OR: Rec Center Cameras 3
TRF-571 85,00085,000IR: Study - Park Nicollet Fiber 3
TRF-572 500,000500,000IR: Study - Fiber to PW and Parks Bldgs.3
TRF-575 400,000400,000IR: Study - Complete Fiber Rings 1
TRF-576 20,00020,000IR: Study - Brickhouse Fiber and Wireless (2013?)3
TRF-577 85,00085,000IR: Highway 7 / Louisiana Area Fiber 3
TRF-579 60,00060,000IR: Hwy 100 Bridges Conduit / Mtka Blvd Fiber Loop 3
TRF-580 50,00020,000 10,000 10,000 10,000Admin Serv: Agenda Management Software/Hardware 3
TRF-581 90,00060,000 10,000 10,000 10,000Admin Serv:Agenda Documents Mgmt
Software/Hardware
5
TRF-582 45,00045,000MSC Cameras 3
TRF-583 30,00030,000OR: Banquet Rm Video Conferencing/Multiple Monitor 3
TRF-584 10,00010,000OR: Rec Center Monitors (Gallery / Prog Office)3
TRF-585 15,00015,000Fire: Station 1 Copier 3
TRF-588 55,00011,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000Surveillance Camera Maintenance 3
TRF-590 40,00040,000Facilities: Security System Review / Upgrades 3
7,807,5002,043,000 1,675,000 2,032,000 898,000 1,159,500Technology Total
119,655,31029,702,185 39,122,458 29,380,458 8,374,410 13,075,799Grand Total
Tuesday, November 05, 2013
Study Session Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 3)
Title: Long Range Financial Management Plan and 2014 – 2018 C.I.P.Page 16
Study Session Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 3) Title: Long Range Financial Management Plan and 2014 – 2018 C.I.P.Page 17
Study Session Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 3) Title: Long Range Financial Management Plan and 2014 – 2018 C.I.P.Page 18
Study Session Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 3) Title: Long Range Financial Management Plan and 2014 – 2018 C.I.P.Page 19
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: November 12, 2013
Discussion Item: 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: City Manager’s 2013 Performance Evaluation Discussion
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff requests direction in order to begin the performance
evaluation process for the City Manager.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the City Council in agreement with the recommendations for
the City Manager’s 2013 annual performance evaluation?
SUMMARY: The employment agreement between the City and the City Manager states that
“the City may conduct an annual review of the Manager’s performance”. The purpose of the
evaluation process is to provide feedback to the City Manager on performance so that he can
strive for continuous performance improvement based on City Council expectations.
Over the years, Council has used different methods to provide performance feedback to the City
Manager. These methods range from completing the process “in-house”, assisted by staff, to
hiring consultants. In 2009 – 2012, we hired consultant J. Forrest to compile and summarize
Council comments on the evaluation. Council has requested we use a different consultant for
2013. The Council appeared interested in having the consultant conduct personal interviews
individually with each Councilmember as part of this evaluation process. Staff received
proposals from three firms for this type of process as follows:
Interview Process
BWR $6,000
Springsted $4,500
Management Partners $7,590
After review of the proposals, we recommend using Lynae Steinhagen of BWR Organizational
Consulting for this process. References were checked and were very favorable. If Council is in
agreement, we will work with Lynae to set up interviews with Council and Tom; and also gather
information from Directors. For consistency in collection of information, we recommend using
the same form (attached) to collect data that we have used since 2009.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Funds from the Human Resources budget
would be used for this project.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Evaluation Form
BWR Proposal
Prepared by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Title: City Manager’s 2013 Performance Evaluation Discussion
City of St. Louis Park
CITY MANAGER APPRAISAL FORM
CHECK ONE BOX FOR
EACH CATEGORY
PROVIDE COMMENTS FOR EACH
CATEGORY IN THIS COLUMN
Organizational Management & Leadership
Exceeds Expectations
Successful
Meets Expectations
Needs Improvement
Don’t Know
Communication Skills and Public Relations
Exceeds Expectations
Successful
Meets Expectations
Needs Improvement
Don’t Know
Relationship with the City Council
Exceeds Expectations
Successful
Meets Expectations
Needs Improvement
Don’t Know
Interagency Relations
Exceeds Expectations
Successful
Meets Expectations
Needs Improvement
Don’t Know
Long Range Planning
Exceeds Expectations
Successful
Meets Expectations
Needs Improvement
Don’t Know
Study Session Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Title: City Manager’s 2013 Performance Evaluation Discussion
CHECK ONE BOX FOR
EACH CATEGORY
PROVIDE COMMENTS FOR EACH
CATEGORY IN THIS COLUMN
Staff Supervision/Overall Performance of City Staff
Exceeds Expectations
Successful
Meets Expectations
Needs Improvement
Don’t Know
Fiscal/Business Management
Exceeds Expectations
Successful
Meets Expectations
Needs Improvement
Don’t Know
OTHER COMMENTS:
___________________________________________________________
Signature Date
3810 Edmund Boulevard Minneapolis MN 55406
612.722.6767 (ph) 612.605.5833 (fax) www.bwrconsulting.com
City Manager Performance Assessment
Proposal
Prepared for:
The City of St. Louis Park
September 26, 2013
Study Session Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Title: City Manager’s 2013 Performance Evaluation Discussion Page 4
Page 2
Presenting Need and Proposal
Presenting Need
The City of St. Louis Park conducts an annual performance review of the City Manager using a
questionnaire that is delivered to City Council members and the direct reports to the City
Manager. This year, the City of St. Louis Park wishes to engage an outside consulting firm to
facilitate the performance review, compile the results, and meet with the City Manager and City
Council to discuss goals for the coming year. BWR Consulting, Inc. proposes to be the consulting
firm of choice.
BWR Consulting Proposal
BWR Consulting offers two approaches for conducting the City Manager performance
review:
Approach 1 –Interviews of the City Council and direct report to the City Manager:
1. Review the existing performance review questionnaire.
2. Collaborate with the H.R. Coordinator, or other designated subject matter experts, to
update and refine the performance review questionnaire to match the City Manager job
description and ensure that all applicable leadership, administrative, and management
competencies are evaluated.
3. Using the updated questionnaire as a guide, prepare an interview guide for use in
conducting face-to-face interviews with the City Council members and direct reports to
the City Manager.
4. Submit the interview questions to the H.R. Coordinator for review and approval.
5. Edit the questions, as required.
6. Schedule face-to-face interviews with each of the City Council members and direct
reports to the City Manager.
Study Session Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Title: City Manager’s 2013 Performance Evaluation Discussion Page 5
Page 3
7. Conduct 60 minute face-to-face interviews. Engage the interviewees in a dialog to
capture robust and explicit examples of the City Manager’s performance against the
prescribed competencies.
8. Prepare a written report of the interview findings for the City Manager.
9. Meet with the City Manager to present the interview findings in person and offer
coaching based on the findings.
10. Prepare and submit a summary of the interview findings to the H.R. Coordinator and City
Council.
11. Meet with the City Council and City Manager in tandem to facilitate a discussion of goal
setting based on the performance review interview findings.
Approach 2 – Deliver Performance Review via Questionnaire:
1. Review the existing performance review questionnaire.
2. Collaborate with the H.R. Coordinator, or other designated subject matter experts, to
update and refine the performance review questionnaire to match the City Manager job
description and ensure that all applicable leadership, administrative, and management
competencies are evaluated.
3. Submit the revised questionnaire to the H.R. Coordinator for review and approval.
4. Edit the questionnaire, as required.
5. Deliver the questionnaire electronically to the City Council and direct reports to the City
Manager.
6. Receive the questionnaires, compile the results, and prepare a written summary for
delivery to the City Manager.
7. Meet with the City Manager to present the interview findings in person and offer
coaching based on the findings.
Study Session Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Title: City Manager’s 2013 Performance Evaluation Discussion Page 6
Page 4
8. Prepare and submit a summary of the interview findings to the H.R. Coordinator and City
Council.
9. Meet with the City Council and City Manager in tandem to facilitate a discussion of goal
setting based on the performance review interview findings.
BWR Consulting recommends Approach 1 to conduct face-to-face interviews with the City
Council and direct reports to the City Manager. This approach yields more robust and
nuanced feedback that may not otherwise be identified through a questionnaire/survey. The
City Manager job is a critical one – a performance review process that is comprehensive and
involves two-way dialog is more likely to reveal important and actionable feedback for
improvement.
Investment
$150 per hour (applicable for both approaches)
Estimate for Approach 1: 40 hours or $6,000
Estimate for Approach 2: 25 hours or $3,750
Client will be presented with a record of all activities to document total hours spent. Client
will be invoiced upon completion of the presentation of the performance review findings to
the City Council.
Study Session Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Title: City Manager’s 2013 Performance Evaluation Discussion Page 7
Page 5
BWR Consulting, Inc. - Capabilities
BWR Consulting, Inc. is a certified Women-Owned Enterprise that provides consulting,
processes, tools, and training to help organizations:
Improve operational efficiency and effectiveness in order to drive performance
results.
Build cultures that engage employees and reinforce organizational vision, mission and
values.
Develop leaders who are committed to inspiring individual performance, building
cohesive teams and maximizing organizational strengths.
BWR Consulting, Inc. is privileged to have worked with organizations in a variety of
industries, including the following:
Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Nestlé Purina
H.U.D. Nationstar Mortgage
Cargill Fannie Mae
Ameriprise Financial Children’s Hospitals of MN
QTS Packaging Solutions The City of Eden Prairie
REDC Default Solutions University of St. Thomas
TE Miller Development, LLC Midwest Energy Association
Focus Areas
BWR Consulting, Inc. is skilled in consulting with organizations of all sizes within the
following areas:
Leadership Training and Development
Team Building
Change Management
Building Trust
Effective Communications
Decision Making and Problem Solving
Developing Others
Coaching
Employee Engagement
Study Session Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Title: City Manager’s 2013 Performance Evaluation Discussion Page 8
Page 6
About Lynae Steinhagen
Speaker, facilitator, and consultant. Clients call Lynae when they need ideas and experience
to implement a strategic initiative or solve an organizational challenge. Her work with clients
has included helping them to:
Build engaging cultures that inspire shared meaning and reinforce valu es
Develop and expand individual, team and leadership capabilities
Facilitate the management of change
Improve operational efficiency and effectiveness
Lynae’s corporate and consulting experience spans a variety of disciplines including strategic
human resource management, training and development, sales management, and project
management.
Lynae’s communication and presentation styles are defined by her passionate spirit and
energy. She is able to create an environment where teams and individuals engage,
brainstorm and discover practical solutions in creative ways, while having fun in the process.
She quickly builds trust with audiences through her informal, candid and inquisitive approach.
When clients work with Lynae, they find new possibilities. Her areas of expertise and passion
include: building culture, leadership development, team building, and employee engagement.
Lynae is a graduate of the Leadership Institute of St. Catherine University and has studied
Human Resource Management at St. Mary’s University. She is certified in the Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator (MBTI).
Study Session Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 4)
Title: City Manager’s 2013 Performance Evaluation Discussion Page 9
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: November 12, 2013
Written Report: 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: September 2013 Monthly Financial Report
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: The Monthly Financial Report provides a summary of General Fund revenues
and departmental expenditures and a comparison of budget to actual throughout the year.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: At the end of September, General Fund
expenditures total 72.8% of the adopted annual budget, which is approximately 2% under where
expenditures would normally be at the end of the third quarter. Please see the attached analysis
for more details.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Summary of Revenues & Expenditures
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Title: September 2013 Monthly Financial Report
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: This report is designed to provide summary information of the overall level
of revenues and departmental expenditures in the General Fund and a comparison of budget to
actual throughout the year. Please note that beginning in July 2013 the format of this report has
changed to reflect the reorganization of the former Park & Recreation and Public Works
Departments. According to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), the
reorganization made it necessary to consolidate the Park & Recreation Fund into the General
Fund.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: Actual expenditures should generally run about 75% of the
annual budget in September. Currently, the General Fund has expenditures totaling 72.8% of the
adopted budget. Revenues tend to be harder to measure in this same way due to the timing of
when they are received, examples of which include property taxes and State aid payments, such
as Police & Fire Aid, DOT/Highway User Tax, and PERA Aid. A few brief comments on
variances are explained below.
Revenues:
• License and permit revenues have been running ahead of budget all year, and as was
anticipated, they have begun to exceed the total annual budget. As of the end of
September, total license and permit revenues are approximately 1% or $22,000 greater
than the total annual budget. Building permit activity for alterations and remodeling
projects to existing commercial buildings has been higher than expected this year. It is
difficult to anticipate how much permit revenues will exceed budget by the end of the
year, as it could be affected quite significantly by the timing of permits for planned new
developments, such as the Wooddale Flats.
Expenditures:
• Accounting is exceeding budget at 76.2% in September. This is because of a shift in how
the liability and property insurance premium expense is now being allocated due to the
reorganization and combining of the former Park & Recreation Fund into the General
Fund. Premium expense previously charged to Park & Recreation Departments will be
charged against the Accounting budget for the remainder of the year causing Accounting
to look over budget until the Revised 2013 Budget will be brought to Council in
December to address the most significant budget changes that were necessary because of
the reorganization.
• Human Resources is exceeding budget at 76.6% due to recruiting expenses.
• The Organized Recreation Division is at 81.4% of budget through September. This is in
part because the full annual Community Education contribution in the amount of
$187,400 was paid to the School District earlier in the year. The timing of this large
expenditure is consistent with prior years and creates a temporary variance. Also, some
costs in this Division are seasonal, with larger expenses occurring for recreational
activities over the summer and early fall months. When comparing 2013 to prior year
through September, the results are very consistent.
• Expenditures in the Rec Center Division are exceeding budget at 84.2%. Prior history
indicates that it is typical for there to be a seasonal variance at this point in the year since
a large portion of the budgets for temporary staff and supplies are spent over the summer
Study Session Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Title: September 2013 Monthly Financial Report
months for the pool and concessions. However, there are several other areas exceeding
the annual budgeted amounts. Building and equipment maintenance expenses have gone
over budget due to repairs that included the boiler, air conditioning, water slide, pool
vacuum, and concession equipment. Temporary salary expenditures are exceeding
budget because of an added life guard and additional maintenance staffing needed to help
with projects and cover vacations. Operating expenditures were also incurred for several
non-routine items, including studies and assessments and to replace chairs in the gallery
room and around the pool. Staff has reviewed expenses in this division and reclassified
where appropriate to capital or contingency. However, it is still likely that there will be
an end of year overage in this division of 3% to 5%.
NEXT STEPS: None are required at this time.
Summary of Revenues & Expenditures - General Fund
As of September 30, 2013
2013 2013
2011 2011 2012 2012 2013 2013 Balance YTD Budget
Budget Actual Budget Actual Budget Sept YTD Remaining to Actual %
General Fund Revenues:
General Property Taxes 19,426,633$ 19,372,637$ 20,169,798$ 20,209,604$ 20,657,724$ 10,804,834$ 9,852,890$ 52.30%
Licenses and Permits 2,352,510 2,797,698 2,375,399 3,241,812 2,481,603 2,503,452 (21,849) 100.88%
Fines & Forfeits 328,200 281,047 328,150 341,356 335,150 219,604 115,546 65.52%
Intergovernmental 1,213,839 1,452,030 1,232,579 1,365,023 1,300,191 626,874 673,317 48.21%
Charges for Services 2,247,893 2,159,300 2,341,104 2,169,631 2,475,197 1,819,190 656,007 73.50%
Miscellaneous Revenue 1,037,550 1,164,452 1,079,550 1,092,234 1,092,381 674,358 418,023 61.73%
Transfers In 2,589,876 2,553,665 2,023,003 2,066,136 1,816,563 1,342,135 474,428 73.88%
Investment Earnings 200,000 203,282 125,000 136,415 150,000 150,000 0.00%
Other Income 19,750 101,588 45,600 276,273 36,650 9,281 27,369 25.32%
Total General Fund Revenues 29,416,251$ 30,085,699$ 29,720,183$ 30,898,483$ 30,345,459$ 17,999,728$ 12,345,731$ 59.32%
General Fund Expenditures:
General Government:
Administration 889,798$ 825,168$ 1,012,554$ 977,392$ 877,099$ 660,452$ 216,647$ 75.30%
Accounting 612,964 624,573 641,691 639,999 657,592 501,338 156,254 76.24%
Assessing 500,141 506,426 517,840 518,271 543,855 407,356 136,499 74.90%
Human Resources 652,770 629,734 667,612 645,357 678,988 519,865 159,123 76.56%
Community Development 1,094,186 1,082,461 1,076,376 1,052,186 1,094,517 810,805 283,712 74.08%
Facilities Maintenance 1,114,551 955,880 1,083,128 972,481 1,074,920 707,273 367,647 65.80%
Information Resources 1,394,226 1,421,858 1,507,579 1,363,266 1,770,877 1,150,110 620,767 64.95%
Communications & Marketing 294,470 256,558 265,426 244,392 201,322 113,251 88,071 56.25%
Community Outreach 88,515 84,300 8,185 5,341 8,185 4,496 3,689 54.93%
Engineering 846,032 816,280 927,337 939,425 940,479 700,526 239,953 74.49%
Total General Government 7,487,653$ 7,203,238$ 7,707,728$ 7,358,111$ 7,847,834$ 5,575,473$ 2,272,361$ 71.04%
Public Safety:
Police 7,208,512$ 6,943,375$ 7,273,723$ 7,124,784$ 7,443,637$ 5,422,944$ 2,020,693$ 72.85%
Fire Protection 3,164,344 3,061,962 3,346,931 3,291,655 3,330,263 2,366,928 963,335 71.07%
Inspectional Services 1,863,296 1,818,212 1,889,340 1,869,616 1,928,446 1,442,174 486,272 74.78%
Total Public Safety 12,236,152$ 11,823,549$ 12,509,994$ 12,286,055$ 12,702,346$ 9,232,047$ 3,470,299$ 72.68%
Operations & Recreation:
Public Works Administration 829,698$ 803,259$ 389,783$ 378,852$ 393,054$ 229,051$ 164,003$ 58.27%
Public Works Operations 2,550,285 2,461,099 2,604,870 2,521,463 2,698,870 1,949,588 749,282 72.24%
Organized Recreation 1,239,230 1,266,774 1,305,747 1,352,273 1,317,526 1,072,664 244,862 81.42%
Recreation Center 1,442,447 1,424,076 1,466,246 1,516,121 1,463,224 1,231,959 231,265 84.19%
Park Maintenance 1,435,374 1,462,866 1,461,645 1,444,448 1,483,576 1,119,512 364,064 75.46%
Westwood 502,366 488,579 515,456 506,404 533,565 389,044 144,521 72.91%
Environment 371,324 396,664 390,009 382,378 430,876 273,361 157,515 63.44%
Vehicle Maintenance 1,141,722 1,300,708 1,188,705 1,326,153 1,294,588 975,197 319,391 75.33%
Total Operations & Recreation 9,512,446$ 9,604,023$ 9,322,461$ 9,428,091$ 9,615,279$ 7,240,376$ 2,374,903$ 75.30%
Non-Departmental:
General 81,287$ -$ 65,292$ -$ -$ 0.00%
Transfers Out 900,000 - 1,160,000 - - 0.00%
Tax Court Petitions 180,000 - 180,000 - 180,000 45,067 134,933 25.04%
Total Non-Departmental 180,000$ 981,287$ 180,000$ 1,225,292$ 180,000$ 45,067$ 134,933$ 25.04%
Total General Fund Expenditures 29,416,251$ 29,612,097$ 29,720,183$ 30,297,549$ 30,345,459$ 22,092,963$ 8,252,496$ 72.80%
Study Session Meeting of November 12, 2013 (Item No. 5)
Title: September 2013 Monthly Financial Report Page 4
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: November 12, 2013
Written Report: 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Update on Environment and Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. This report is being provided for
informational purposes.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: The Environment and Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP has been
meeting monthly since July 17th. This is an update of their progress.
July: Reviewed the ordinance and their charge from City Council, set term limits, began
working on by-laws.
August: Finished by-laws, elected officers, discussed meeting guidelines, and did a group
exercise on sustainability.
September: Finalized their meeting guidelines, worked further on sustainability issues which
started in August, agreed to lengthen the next two meetings to go from 7:00-9:00 (with the first
hour dedicated to learning more about the environment and the second hour to formulate their
work plan).
October: The first hour was spent learning about the GreenStep initiative. Diana McKeown,
Metro CERTS’s Director and Jim Vaughan led the group through the big picture of GreenStep
and where we were in St. Louis Park. The second hour was focused on moving closer to
agreement on the work plan, understanding that education needs to be a key part of the plan.
November: The first 30 minutes were with Bill Sierks, Chair of the Edina Environmental
Commission. This allowed the SLP Commissioners to learn what worked and what mistakes they
made in starting out as well as what they are doing now. The next 30 minutes were with Sean
Gosiewski, Alliance for Sustainability. The focus was on what other cities and Commissions are
doing in the area of sustainability. The last hour was dedicated to the work plan. The
Commission went through a process that included areas they think are most important to
undertake in 2014. A constructive discussion was held and it was agreed that they would
continue the discussion at their Dec. 11th meeting. The goal is to be done with the work plan by
the end of the year and present it to City Council in January.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental
stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city
business.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None
Prepared by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation
Bridget Gothberg, Organizational Development Coordinator
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager