Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2011/02/28 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study Session
AGENDA FEBRUARY 28, 2011 6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers Discussion Items 1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – March 7 & March 14, 2011 2. 6:35 p.m. Park Summit Apartment Proposal – Project Overview 3. 7:05 p.m. Community Recreation Survey Results 4. 7:50 p.m. Fire Stations Project Update 5. 8:35 p.m. Deer Update 6. 9:05 p.m. Telecommunications Advisory Commission 2010 Annual Report & 2011 Work Plan 7. 9:10 p.m. Housing Authority 2010 Annual Report & 2011 Work Plan 8. 9:15 p.m. Planning Commission 2010 Annual Report & 2011 Work Plan 9. 9:20 p.m. Communications / Meeting Check-in (Verbal) 9:25 p.m. Adjourn Written Reports 10. January 2011 Monthly Financial Report 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 Date: February 28, 2011 Agenda Item #: 1 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – March 7 and March 14, 2011. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the Special Study Session scheduled for March 7 and the regularly scheduled Study Session on March 14, 2011. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the agendas as proposed? BACKGROUND: At each study session, approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next study session agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the tentative agenda and proposed discussion items for a Special Study Session scheduled for March 7 and the regularly scheduled Study Session on March 14, 2011. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None. VISION CONSIDERATION: None. Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning March 7 and March 14, 2011 Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – March 7 and March 14, 2011 Special Study Session, March 7, 2011 – Immediately following City Council Meeting 1. Highway 100 – Public Works (60 minutes) Obtain Council feedback on possible Highway 100 access and city street options north of Minnetonka Boulevard and west of Highway 100. Study Session, Monday, March 14, 2011 – 6:30 p.m. Tentative Discussion Items 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes) 2. Decision Resources Survey – Administrative Services (45 minutes) The City will conduct a statistically valid community survey this spring. The City has a practice of doing this every 2-3 years. Staff and Bill Morris of Decision Resources will be present at the study session to review the questions and get council feedback on the 2011 Community Survey questions. 3. Proposal: Metropolitan Consortium of Community Developers – Community Development (30 minutes) Proposal for the EDA to consider entering into a contract with the Metropolitan Consortium of Community Developers (MCCD) to provide small business technical assistance, training, and entrepreneur development services at City Hall on a monthly basis. 4. SWLRT Update – Community Development (45 minutes) Update on the status of the Southwest LRT project to include activities of the Metropolitan Council, a status of the project and associated planning grants being administered through it, and a description of the Community Works activities. In addition, City staff will update Council on some background work that has begun on the Beltline station area; the City has received “pre-planning” grants from the Metropolitan Council to study storm water design and conduct a public process for creating design guidelines in the Beltline area. 5. Highway 169 Noise Wall Project – Public Works (45 minutes) Obtain Council feedback on necessary and optional noisewall installations and access closures along Hwy 169 through the length of the City. City and Mn/DOT staff will be in attendance to present information and answer questions during the discussion. 6. Parks & Rec Commission Annual Report & Work Plan – Parks & Rec (5 minutes) The City Council will be asked to review the Parks & Rec Commission’s 2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work Plan. If so desired by the City Council, at a future study session the Commissioners and staff liaisons will be available to discuss the annual report and work plan with Council. 7. 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: 2011 Assessment Report Plan by Neighborhood Chapter – Comp Plan West End TIF Note Park Nicollet Redevelopment Contract Amendment End of Meeting: 9:30 p.m. Meeting Date: February 28, 2011 Agenda Item #: 2 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Park Summit Apartment Proposal - Project Overview. RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action is necessary at this time. The purpose of this report and study session discussion is to provide a preview of the revised proposal for the Park Summit site at 3601 Park Center Boulevard, for which a Planned Unit Development (PUD) was originally approved in 2003. POLICY CONSIDERATION: The developer, E. J. Plesko, will be applying for a major amendment to the previously approved PUD for the Park Summit building. The proposal is to increase the number of units from 145 to 192, while maintaining the 12-story building height. The building would be a market rate rental building. The intent of this agenda item is to give the City Council a chance to meet the developers, ask questions about the proposal and raise any issues regarding the request. BACKGROUND: Approved PUD: The Park Summit development was approved in 2003 as a 150-unit, 14-story senior condominium building located at 3601 Park Center Boulevard. The proposal called for the removal of the existing three-story office building on the site. The development would provide residents with excellent access to Wolfe Park and the Rec Center, and was found to be in keeping with the overall redevelopment plans for the Park Commons area of the City. As originally proposed, the building would have been designed as part of the overall Silver Crest senior complex. The complex currently includes a 45-unit assisted living building at 3633 Park Center Boulevard and the Parkshores Senior Apartments, a 207-unit, 14-story building located at 3663 Park Center Boulevard. The proposed Park Summit building would have been architecturally integrated into the campus, mimicking the brick and green roof found on the 14- story Parkshores building. In 2005, the developers requested that the age restrictions for the proposed Park Summit condominium building be removed from the resolution of approval. After review by the Planning Commission and the City Council, the request was approved with the provisions that the building be reduced from 14 to 12 stories (and from 145 feet to 126 feet), and the number of units be reduced from 150 to 145. Due to market conditions, the proposed condominium building was not constructed. Under the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance, PUD approvals do not expire. For this reason the approved Park Summit building could move forward with construction at the current time if market conditions warranted more condominium units within St. Louis Park. Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 2 Subject: Park Summit Apartment Proposal Current Proposal: The revised proposal would alter the Park Summit building from condominiums to apartments. The residential density would also increase, from 145 to 192 units. The additional units can be accommodated within the approved building height (12 stories) and foot print, because the size of the units and unit mix (1-bedroom vs. 2-bedroom) will be different than was proposed for the condominium building. The developer has not yet finalized the building design, but intends to keep the building at the 12-story height approved in 2005. Because the proposal includes more units than approved in the original PUD, off-site traffic impacts have been identified as a key issue. SRF Consulting was hired by the City to conduct a traffic study, which was funded by the developer. The conclusions of the traffic study are attached. The development was found to have some impact on the traffic patterns around the site; for this reason, SRF recommended a combined driveway across from Target and the installation of a new traffic signal along Park Center Boulevard. Staff held a preliminary meeting with Target to discuss the potential for a signal in this location, and the idea was well received. However, Target raised questions about how the signal would be funded. Both sides of the street would benefit from the signal; costs could be specially assessed or paid for at the time of construction by the property owners. Parking at the Park Summit building would be accomplished in two levels of underground parking. The original PUD approval allowed for a 15% PUD reduction to the number of required parking spaces. Continued review of the plans will focus on whether the reduction is still warranted based on the unit mix and changes to the demographic profile of future residents. There is also excess parking available within the overall PUD, as the residents of the Parkshores building utilize only about 60% of the parking available within their building. It is anticipated that the new building proposal will feature different building materials than previously approved. Rather than mirroring the Parkshores building, the new building will have its own architectural style, which will be residential in character but stand apart from the residential buildings to the south. The developer states that they will continue to comply with the Zoning Ordinance requirements for use of building materials. Representatives of E. J. Plesko & Associates will be in attendance at the meeting to present concept plans for the proposed development, and answer questions the Council members may have. Next Steps: The proposed 192-unit apartment building would be located on the same building footprint as originally proposed. However, the increased residential density triggers the requirement for a Major Amendment to the PUD approval. The Major Amendment process includes a public hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council approval. Outreach to the nearby neighborhoods is anticipated prior to submittal of an official application for the Major Amendment. The developers anticipate submitting their application this spring FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 2) Page 3 Subject: Park Summit Apartment Proposal VISION CONSIDERATION: The proposed Park Summit apartment building fits within the Strategic Direction adopted by the Council in 2007 to provide a well-maintained and diverse housing stock. The development, as originally approved, also included a dedication for a future public art installation, meeting the Strategic Direction for promoting and integrating arts, culture, and community aesthetics in all City initiatives. Attachments: None. Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Planner Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting Date: February 28, 2011 Agenda Item #: 3 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Community Recreation Survey Results. RECOMMENDED ACTION: None required at this time. This report and study session discussion are intended to prepare the City Council and staff for a more detailed discussion on this topic at the City Council workshop scheduled for March 12. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. BACKGROUND: At the City Council Study Session on August 23, 2010 staff presented a proposal for moving forward on the exploration of the need for additional civic and/or recreational facilities in the community. Undertaking such an effort originates from the 2005/2006 Vision St. Louis Park process and the resulting Strategic Directions adopted by the City Council. To ensure that any future improvements are grounded in strong community support and provide data that demonstrates the problem we are trying to solve or the opportunity we are trying to address, Council directed staff to move ahead with selecting a consulting firm to help develop and undertake a survey. This survey was intended to build from the results of Vision and go much deeper in identifying what is missing in the community from a civic and/or recreational facility perspective. Having the community specifically identify what is missing will provide the Council with good information on the types of facilities or amenities it might wish to consider adding to the community. SELECTION OF CONSULTANT AND DEVELOMENT OF QUESTIONS: A Request for Proposal (RFP) was sent and staff selected Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC to assist in developing questions and undertaking the survey to help assess what is missing in our civic and recreation spaces. Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC is made up of the team of Kathy and Jeff Schoenbauer, who has been conducting research for nearly 30 years. Jeff’s experience is mainly in the area of park, open space and trail planning and design. Kathy has extensive experience in survey work and research projects including project design, instrument design, data gathering, analysis and action planning, facilitation for surveys, focus groups and secondary research. Kathy’s recent experience includes implementing a community outreach program for the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board in which a community-wide survey was done as a part of the process. The Schoenbauer team also finished a qualitative research project for the Department of Natural Resources in an effort to gain an understanding of the factors that underlie the declining participation in nature related activities. At the December 13 study session the City Council reviewed and provided feedback on the survey instrument proposed to be used. Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 3) Page 2 Subject: Community Recreation Survey Results COMPLETION OF THE SURVEY: The survey was designed so that residents would be able to complete the survey online or via paper copy in minimal time. A combination of questions were used that required residents to select an answer as well as a few questions that allowed them to write comments. Staff is very pleased with the number of people who took the survey with the goal of 1,000 completed surveys received. The total number participating was 1,055 and the vast majority of people completed the survey online. NEXT STEPS: Parks and Recreation staff along with the consultant, Schoenbauer Consulting LLC, will be present at the council meeting to discuss the results of the survey and answer any questions that the City Council may have about the findings. Please refer to the attached report for the complete results of the survey. The first page includes an executive summary that will help to provide an overview of the results. The City Council is scheduled to discuss the results of the survey and next steps in much greater detail at the Council’s Workshop on March 12, 2011. VISION CONSIDERATION: This topic is directly related to the results of Vision St. Louis Park and one of the adopted Strategic Directions that “St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community” and the related Focus Area of “Exploring creation of a multi-use civic center, including indoor/winter use”. Attachment: Report of Findings of the Community Survey Prepared by: Cindy S. Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager REPORT OF FINDINGS CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY SURVEY OF FUTURE CIVIC AND/OR RECREATIONAL FACILITIES NEEDS AND INTEREST Conducted by: Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 5054 Drew Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55410 Kathy Schoenbauer, Co-Founder keschoenbauer@gmail.com Jeff Schoenbauer, Co-Founder jaschoenbauer@gmail.com February 2011 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Community Recreation Survey Results Page 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................... 1 DETAILED SUMMARY OF SURVEY FINDINGS: BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES ....................................................................... 5 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................... 5 WHO RESPONDED ...................................................................................... 6 OVERALL FINDINGS .................................................................................... 8 OBSERVATIONS BY WARD ............................................................................. 18 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................... 19 APPENDIX – SURVEY INSTRUMENT Prepared by Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC on behalf of the Park and Recreation Department of the City of St. Louis Park. Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Community Recreation Survey Results Page 4 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background & Objectives The primary objective of the survey was to give all residents of the City of St. Louis Park the opportunity to respond to a survey that would assist the City in determining top priorities for future civic and/or recreational facilities needs and interests. During 2005 – 2007 the City of St. Louis Park was involved in a Visioning process. As a result, the City Council developed four Strategic Directions. One of the strategic directions was “St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.” From that strategic direction, one of the focus areas was to explore the creation of a multi-use civic center, including indoor/winter use. From the Visioning process, staff compiled some preliminary information on this topic. This survey was designed with input from the Visioning process, staff and Council. The results of the survey will be used to help determine priorities for long-term planning of community parks, recreation and civic facilities. The upcoming city-wide phone survey of residents may be used to further test some of the ideas that result from this survey. Methodology & Who Responded The survey was administered online and via paper. One-thousand fifty-five (1,055) people responded. The City should be pleased with this response level as it reflects quite positively on the City. Whereas all residents were given the opportunity to respond, keep in mind that respondents to an open survey are typically those that are most involved and interested in the subject. That is, residents who feel strongly – either positively or negatively – tend to be the ones that respond to an open survey. (Note: respondents were asked to respond to the survey from the perspective of their household.) Key Results Clearly public parks and recreation are important to residents. Nearly ninety percent of respondents (89.9%) strongly agree or agree with the statement: Public parks and recreation are important to my household’s quality of life. In terms of how the City is doing, over seventy-two percent (72.3%) strongly agree or agree with the statement: The City of St. Louis Park is doing a good job of providing for my household’s park and recreation needs. While the majority of residents say the City is doing a good job, there is more that can be done to meet the needs and expectations of residents. When asked to rate how important it is to add a particular facility among a list of 16 facilities, the five rated the highest are: 1. Trails for walking, biking, rollerblading, etc. 2. Indoor recreation space/gyms for multiple uses 3. Natural open space 4. Lighted athletic fields (existing fields) 5. Indoor playground (play area; play equipment, etc.) Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Community Recreation Survey Results Page 5 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 2 Interestingly, when asked to select exactly three facilities that are most important to add, trails again came out on top, but the order changed from there: 1. Trails for walking, biking, rollerblading, etc. 2. Swimming pool – indoor 3. Indoor recreation space/gyms for multiple uses 4. Indoor playground (play area, play equipment, etc.) 5. Natural open space While the two lists are not identical, it is clear that the top priority for future community park, recreation and civic facilities is trails. By examining the responses to open-ended questions, one gains greater insight into specific issues about trails. The most frequent comments include the need for north/south trails; trail connections; and that trails (and in some cases sidewalks) are needed to get to park and recreation facilities safely. After trails, an indoor park/recreation facility is a priority for respondents. Many people envision such a facility serving a number of desired functions – indoor recreation space, indoor playground, fitness equipment, track and pool. Respondents often mentioned the need for an indoor park much like those in other communities, such as Edinborough in Edina. Natural open space is also a priority for respondents. One respondent described its importance by saying “Not to give any more green space away - it is what makes SLP special.” Respondents were asked about limitations to use of public parks and trails and participating in recreation activities or programs. As one might expect, lack of time is cited most frequently. In terms of limitations that the City can directly address, respondent most often said: • Facilities are not suited to my needs • Programs are not to my liking • Cost of programs & facilities In an effort to understand how to best allocate resources by age group, respondents were asked to indicate how important they think it is to provide additional recreation facilities and/or gathering places by age group. Respondents see the greatest need in the 13 – 17 year old age group, followed closely by those in the 6 – 12 year old age group. Next in line in terms of priority are seniors. Young children, under 5 years old, were the lowest priority for which to provide additional recreation facilities. Respondents were asked “If you think more public gathering places (e.g., Rec Center, coffee shops, parks, etc.) are needed, what types of things would you want to be able to do in those places?” The most frequent response was an indoor play & fitness area. Some went on to say that it should be a space that would have classes for activities such as exercise, yoga and cooking; and that it should be an indoor space with greenery and provide the opportunity to walk indoors. People also talked about an interest in having a place to socialize, hold meetings, and rent space for personal events (e.g., weddings). Additionally, they commented that a public gathering place should be a place with a coffee shop and healthy food. Last, some people specifically said the Rec Center should be upgraded for a better public gathering place. Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Community Recreation Survey Results Page 6 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 3 The survey asked respondents about user fees and taxes. Specifically, they were asked if the City is not able to pay for “What’s missing in parks and recreation” under the current budget, how much would they be willing to pay in additional user fees or taxes to add what’s missing? Over four-fifths of respondents said they would be willing to pay more to add what’s missing. Roughly one-third of respondents said they would be willing to pay $9/month additional; approximately one-quarter said $6/month and $3/month. At the end of the survey, many people acknowledged the good work the Parks and Recreation Department is doing and noted their appreciation for conducting the survey/asking for their opinion. Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Community Recreation Survey Results Page 7 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 4 DETAILED SUMMARY OF SURVEY FINDINGS Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Community Recreation Survey Results Page 8 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 5 BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES The primary objective of the survey was to give all residents of the City of St. Louis Park the opportunity to respond to a survey that would assist the City in determining top priorities for future civic and/or recreational facilities needs and interests. During 2005 – 2007 the City of St. Louis Park was involved in a Visioning process. As a result, the City Council developed four strategic directions, one of which was “Exploring creation of a multi-use civic center, including indoor/winter use.” From the Visioning process, staff compiled some preliminary information on this topic. This survey was designed with input from the Visioning process, staff and Council. The results of the survey will be used to help determine priorities for long- term planning of community park, recreation and civic facilities. METHODOLOGY The survey was designed based upon the objectives of the study along with input from the results of the Visioning process, staff and Council. The survey went through several draft iterations before being pilot tested online and on paper. The survey instrument is included in the appendix of this report. As indicated earlier in this report, in addition to obtaining input from residents to help determine the top priorities for future community park, recreation and civic facilities, the City wanted to ensure all residents could provide input, if they chose to take the time to do so. Therefore, the administration methods needed to be inclusive and the communication strategy comprehensive. Administration methods included providing the opportunity to complete the survey either online (using SurveyMonkey as the host site) or on paper. (Note: Only 13 of the 1,055 respondents chose to complete the survey on paper; the rest completed the survey online.) The communication strategy was comprehensive in that residents were notified about the survey in a variety of ways, including, but not limited to the following: • City website • City Hall • The Rec Center • Westwood Hills Nature Center • Neighborhood Associations • Sun Sailor • Patch.com • StarTribune • Local cable TV • Facebook • Twitter • Athletic Associations • Jewish Community Center • Lenox Senior Center • City Libraries Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Community Recreation Survey Results Page 9 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 6 WHO RESPONDED The survey was open to residents from January 3 – 31, 2011. One thousand fifty-five (n=1,055) people responded to the survey. (Respondents were asked to respond to the survey from the perspective of their household.) The City should be pleased with this response level as it reflects quite positively on the City. That said, it is important to keep the following demographic data (i.e., which neighborhood respondents live in and the age groups of people in the responding households) in mind. Whereas all residents were given the opportunity to respond, keep in mind that respondents to an open survey are typically those that are most involved and interested in the subject. That is, residents who feel strongly – either positively or negatively – tend to be the ones that respond to an open survey. By Neighborhood One or more households responded from each of the 35 neighborhoods as shown in the chart below: Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Community Recreation Survey Results Page 10 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 7 By Ward When the 35 neighborhoods are re-configured into wards, the response distribution is: Ward 1 25.5% Birchwood, Blackstone, Bronx Park, Cedarhurst, Fern Hill, Lake Forest, Lenox* & Sorensen Ward 2 36.0% Brooklawns, Brookside, Browndale, Creekside, Elmwood, Minikahda Oaks, Minikahda Vista, Triangle & Wolfe Park Ward 3 17.5% Amhurst, Aquila, Cobblecrest, Meadowbrook, Minnehaha, Oak Hill, South Oak Hill, Texa Tonka & Lenox* Ward 4 18.9% Cedar Manor, Crestview, Eliot, Eliot View, Kilmer Pond, Pennsylvania Park, Shelard Park, Westdale, Westwood Hills & Willow Park *Lenox spans wards 1 & 3. Note: the above percentages do not total to 100 as some respondents did not indicate which neighborhood they live in. By Age Group Responded were asked to indicate the ages of each of the people in their household. As shown in the chart below, nearly three-quarters (72.1%) of households responding contain people that are 35 – 54 years old; and over half (51.0%) have children ages 6 – 12 years: Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Community Recreation Survey Results Page 11 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 8 OVERALL FINDINGS Parks and Recreation Overall It is clear that public parks and recreation are important to residents of St. Louis Park. Nearly ninety percent (89.9%) of residents strongly agree or agree with the statement: Public parks and recreation are important to my household’s quality of life. In terms of how the City is doing, over seventy-two percent (72.3%) strongly agree or agree with the statement: The City of St. Louis Park is doing a good job of providing for my household’s park and recreation needs. While the majority of residents say the City is doing a good job, as the chart below indicates, there is more that can be done to meet the needs and expectations of residents. “What’s Missing?” One of the primary objectives of the study was to determine “What’s Missing” in parks and recreation in St. Louis Park. Respondents were presented with a list of sixteen (16) park and recreation facilities that were identified during the recent City Visioning process and asked to indicate how important they feel it is to add each facility to the City. As shown in the chart below, trails are of greatest importance with an average rating of 3.9 on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = not all important to add; 3 = somewhat important to add; and 5 = extremely important to add. Nine out of the sixteen facilities received an average rating of “3” or greater as shown in the following list. Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Community Recreation Survey Results Page 12 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 9 1. Trails – 3.9 2. Indoor recreation space – 3.6 3. Natural open spaces – 3.6 4. Lighted athletic fields – 3.4 5. Indoor playground area – 3.3 6. Indoor spaces for healthy living classes – 3.3 7. Indoor swimming pool – 3.2 8. Indoor exercise equipment – 3.1 9. Art facility for performing arts 3.0 Respondents were given the opportunity to write in their ideas for “other recreation facilities” to add to the system. One hundred forty-four (144) people provided comments. The most frequently cited facility was an outdoor ice rink, along with the need for lights, warming houses and an extended season. Comments about outdoor ice rinks were mentioned by 62 people, or 43.1% of those providing comments. The next most frequently mentioned facility is a multi-use indoor sports and fitness facility with turf and a dome with 17 (11.8%) people providing comments. It is important to keep in mind that these are relatively small numbers compared to the total number of respondents. Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Community Recreation Survey Results Page 13 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 10 When required to select three facilities they feel are most important to add to those offered by the City, residents said: 1. Trails for walking, biking, rollerblading, etc. – 40.1% 2. Indoor swimming pool – 31.5% 3. Indoor recreation space/gyms for multiple uses – 28.9% Clearly there is a small, but vocal group of residents who feel the need for more outdoor ice rinks. Of the 101 people providing write-in comments to this question, nearly half (46.5%) said an outdoor ice rink is needed. Limitations to Use and Participation Lack of time is cited as the primary reason use of public parks, trails and participation in recreation activities or programs is limited; with 75.4% of respondents saying that lack of time limits their use from “some extent” to “a great deal.” In terms of the limitations that the City can directly address, the percent of respondents indicating their use is limited to “some extent” to “a great deal” is as follows: • Facilities are not suited to my needs – 48.5% • Programs are not to my liking – 39.9% • Cost of programs & facilities – 35.2% Further detailed information regarding limitations can be found in the chart on the next page. Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Community Recreation Survey Results Page 14 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 11 What Else? When asked “What else, if anything, is missing in parks and recreation in St. Louis Park, that if present, would make the City a better place to live?” Four hundred sixty-one (461) people provided comments. The top themes were: • Indoor park with play & fitness areas; like Edinborough in Edina – 26.0%* • Ice rink-outdoor with warming house – 11.1% • Trails – in particular, north/south trails; connections in general – 9.3% • Multi-use domed facility with artificial turf – 8.5% • Better overall maintenance and quality of facilities – 7.1% • Indoor pool – 6.5% *When these comments are combined with those saying “indoor pool”, “true community center” and “track” the percentage increases to 35.8%. Clearly, an indoor park/recreation facility is considered a priority and this type of facility would be worth considering when the time comes to add a major facility to the system. Following is a list of additional topics respondents provided. Please note that less than five percent of respondents said the following is needed: arts facilities (visual & performing); lighted outdoor facilities; more programs and facilities for youth and teens; nothing else; more green space; more sidewalks; more restrooms; adult activities/recreation leagues; more dog parks; groomed ski trails; more baseball fields; winter activities and disc golf. Note: 18 people said to “keep up the good work; we have good parks and recreation facilities.” Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Community Recreation Survey Results Page 15 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 12 Change One Thing When asked “If you could change one thing about park and recreation facilities in St. Louis Park, what would that one thing be?” Five hundred seventeen (517) people took the opportunity to respond. The top themes were: • Indoor park with play & fitness areas; like Edinborough in Edina – 15.4%* • Multi-use domed facility with artificial turf – 9.0% • Need for better, higher quality, updated facilities (some commented directly about the need to upgrade the Rec Center) – 8.9% • Make it less expensive to participate; lower rates and priority for SLP residents – 8.1% • Extend facility and programs hours; keep buildings open – 6.6% • Indoor pool – 6.6% * When these comments are combined with those saying “indoor pool”, “true community center” and “track” the percentage increases to 23.0%. Clearly, respondents used this question as an opportunity to drive home their particular interest/perspective. Note: Less than five percent of respondents provided additional comments regarding changing one thing: need outdoor ice rink with warming house (generally for hockey); better maintenance/upkeep/cleaning of existing facilities – both indoor and outdoor (e.g., ice not maintained, bathrooms need cleaning, trash removal); lighted facilities; more restrooms; programs and facilities for youth and teens; use existing resources wisely and collaborate with others; keep up the good work; lower rates for SLP residents and priority for using facilities; more policing and oversight; nothing to change; enhanced water park; more parking; and better access to information regarding programs and facilities. Priority by Age Group In an effort to understand how to best allocate resources by age group, respondents were asked to indicate how important they think it is to provide additional recreation facilities and/or gathering places by age group. As noted in the chart below, respondents see the greatest need in the 13 – 17 year old age group (mean score 4.1; where 5 = Extremely important); followed closely by those in the 6 – 12 year old age group (mean score 3.9). Next in line in terms of priority are seniors. Young children, under 5 years old, were the lowest priority for which to provide additional facilities. Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Community Recreation Survey Results Page 16 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 13 Public Gathering Places Respondents were asked “If you think more public gathering places (e.g., Rec Center, coffee shops, parks, etc.) are needed, what types of things would you want to be able to do in those places?” Four hundred (400) of the 1,055 respondents provided comments. Nearly 40 percent (39.8%) talked about their interest in an indoor play & fitness area. Some went on to say that it should be a space that would have classes for activities such as exercise, yoga and cooking; and that it should be an indoor space with greenery and provide the opportunity to walk indoors. Many mentioned facilities that other communities have, such as the Edinborough facility in Edina. The following ideas were mentioned most frequently: • Indoor play and fitness space – 39.8% • Place to socialize, hold meetings, be able to rent for personal events (e.g., weddings) – 19.8% • Coffee shop; healthy food – 10.5% • Upgrade the Rec Center – 9.5% • Concerts, theatre, performing arts – 6.8% • Free Wi-Fi – 6.0% • Visual arts space for classes & exhibits – 5.8% Many additional ideas were provided by less than five percent of respondents. Those ideas include: place for parents to sit & socialize while kids play; outdoor informal recreation space, especially for kids; teen gathering place; domed facility; nothing else needed; trails for walking & biking; feel safe in parks; ice rink; adult learning classes; athletic fields and courts; outdoor winter activities; places to Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Community Recreation Survey Results Page 17 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 14 read; more parks in general; clean spaces, green spaces; picnic spots; City does a good job already; and place to walk the dog. What Other Ways Could the City Make a Positive Difference? When asked “In what other ways could the City of St. Louis Park make a positive difference in meeting the park and recreation needs of your household?” Two hundred ninety-four (294) people provided comments. Trails and an indoor play and fitness space were mentioned most frequently. Specifically, people said: • Trails – trail connections, keep expanding and maintaining trails, need trails or sidewalks to get to parks – 12.2% • Indoor play & fitness space; “true” community center – 10.5% • Expand/update/use what we have more effectively – 7.1% • Continue the good work; SLP is a great place to live – 6.1% Many additional ideas were provided by less than 5 percent of respondents. Those ideas include: need better maintenance/upkeep/cleaning of existing facilities – both indoor and outdoor (e.g., need mowing, floors and bathrooms cleaned, trash removal); do a better job of communicating what we already have; provide more activities in general; places and activities for teens; make participation more affordable; more policing, traffic control and monitoring of facilities; an indoor pool; water park, no more taxes, nothing more in this economy; more kids programs especially sports, including those for kids who don’t want to commit to a traveling team; more trees, green space; more bathrooms; and collaborate more with others (e.g., schools, sports associations, other communities). Willing to Pay – User Fees An overwhelming majority of respondents are willing to pay additional user fees to add “what’s missing.” Respondents were asked “If the City is not able to pay for “What’s missing in parks and recreation” under the current budget, how much would you be willing to pay in user fees to add what’s missing?” Eighty-six percent (86.8%) indicated that they would be willing to pay anywhere between $3 and $9 additional per month in user fees. In addition to indicating the amount they would be willing to pay, some respondents provided supporting comments. Following is a summary of those responses: Amount % Additional comments $0/month 13.3% Keep fees as low as possible; not willing/able to pay more; be more cost effective with what we have or cut spending $3/month 27.9% Prefer user fees $6/month 24.8% Prefer users fees; keep fees as low as possible $9/month 34.1% Willing to pay $9 or more per month for better facilities and services; prefer user fees N/A Willing to pay $9 or more per month for better facilities and services; prefer user fees; it depends what it is spent on; keep fees as low as possible; be more cost effective with what we have or cut spending Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Community Recreation Survey Results Page 18 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 15 Willing to Pay – Taxes As with user fees, an overwhelming majority of respondents are willing to pay additional taxes to add “what’s missing.” Respondents were asked “If the City is not able to pay for “What’s missing in parks and recreation” under the current budget, how much would you be willing to pay in taxes to add what’s missing?” Eighty percent (80.2%) indicated that they would be willing to pay anywhere between $3 and $9 additional per month in taxes. In addition to indicating the amount they would be willing to pay, some respondents provided supporting comments. Following is a summary of those responses: Amount % Additional comments $0/month 19.8% No more taxes; cut back on other services; make it a user fee $3/month 27.1% n/a $6/month 20.6% Cut back on other services; be more cost effective; user fees or taxes – not both $9/month 32.5% Would pay more than $9/month; depends on what it goes for N/A Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Community Recreation Survey Results Page 19 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 16 Additional Comments Near the end of the survey, respondents were given the opportunity to provide additional comments, and 228 people did so. The key themes include: • Keep up the good work; SLP is a great community – 28.9% • Thanks for doing this survey/asking for my input; will there be feedback? – 14.5% • We spend enough tax money already; don’t spend more on parks; maintain what we have – 10.5% • Update and maintain current facilities; invest in the future – 7.0% Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Community Recreation Survey Results Page 20 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 17 Information about Parks and Recreation At the end of the survey, respondents were asked “Where does your household get information about St. Louis Park parks and recreation? Park brochures and publications were cited most frequently (84.9%); with online being rated second at 63.4%. Optional – Thank You/Marketing Tool Over half (57.6%) of all respondents signed up to receive a complimentary daily admission to the Aquatic Park which was provided as an option in return for taking the time to complete the survey. Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Community Recreation Survey Results Page 21 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 18 OBSERVATIONS BY WARD In terms of the results of the survey, there are rather minor differences by ward. The differences are primarily in terms of who responded to the survey. Those differences are: Ward 1 – slightly higher percentage of 13 – 17 year olds vs. overall population responding; slightly fewer households get information about SLP parks and recreation from their neighborhood association vs. the overall population responding Ward 2 – slightly lower percentage of 13 – 17 year olds vs. overall population responding; much higher percentage of households get information about SLP parks and recreation from their neighborhood association vs. the overall population responding Ward 3 – slightly higher percentage of 18 – 34 year olds vs. the overall population responding; much lower percentage of households get their information about SLP parks and recreation from their neighborhood association vs. the overall population responding Ward 4 – slightly lower percentage of people under 5 years old vs. the overall population responding; lower percentage of households get their information about SLP parks and recreation from their neighborhood association and athletic associations vs. the overall population responding Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Community Recreation Survey Results Page 22 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 19 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This survey provided everyone living in St. Louis Park with the opportunity to provide input to the Park and Recreation Department, and City as a whole, regarding top priorities for future community park, recreation and civic facilities. Typically, those people that are most involved and interested in a subject will take the time to respond to a survey. That is, residents who feel strongly – either positively or negatively – tend to be the ones that respond to an open survey. Clearly public parks and recreation are important to those that responded; and, overall they feel that the City is doing a good job of providing for their household’s needs. Respondents said that trails and trail connections are the single most important facility to add to the system. This is not surprising as much of the research out there demonstrates that trails for walking and biking, in particular, are of great interest to people of all ages. After trails, an indoor park/recreation facility (with fitness facilities, indoor recreation space, pool, greenery and places to sit and socialize) is of great interest to respondents. This type of facility would likely have fairly broad appeal across various demographic groups of residents. In addition to trails and an indoor park, natural open space is important to many respondents and protecting natural open space should be considered a priority. In the design phase of the survey, it was felt that there is some interest in the community for a domed athletic facility with artificial turf and for additional ice rink facilities, particularly for hockey. The results of this survey indicate that interest in, and support for, these types of facilities may or may not be broadly based across the population. If, in the future, the City considers adding these types of facilities to the system, it is recommended that further research be done before moving forward. The City may want to consider further investigating the interest in, and need for, these types of facilities via the upcoming city-wide phone survey that is planned. The City may also want to consider using the city-wide phone survey to further test the idea of an indoor park. It could be useful to understand the scope of amenities residents want/expect in such a facility. Given the cost of an indoor park/recreation facility, the phone survey would be a good tool to validate the importance of an indoor park to all residents (or rather, a statistically reliable sample of the population). Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Community Recreation Survey Results Page 23 Schoenbauer Consulting, LLC 20 APPENDIX – SURVEY INSTRUMENT Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Community Recreation Survey Results Page 24 Page 1 Community, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities Survey The City of St. Louis Park is conducting a city-wide survey of residents and your input is needed to help us determine the top priorities for future community park, recreation and civic facilities. The results of this survey will help us determine priorities for long-term planning. Your input is very important to us. The survey will take less than 10 minutes to complete. Please respond to each question from the perspective of your household. (Complete one survey per household, please.) Your input is important in helping us shape our community! Every household that completes a survey will receive a complimentary daily addmission to the Aquatic Park! Translations of this survey into other languages can be obtained by calling (952) 924-2540. Thank you for your time and effort. Sincerely, Cindy Walsh, Director, Parks & Recreation Department Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Community Recreation Survey Results Page 25 Page 2 Community, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities Survey Please respond to the following questions from the perspective of your household. 1. Please click on the number that best represents your opinion. "1" means you strongly disagree with the statement; "5" means you strongly agree with the statement. 1 = Strongly disagree 3 = Neither agree or disagree 5 = Strongly agree Public parks and recreation are important to my household’s quality of life. nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj The City of St. Louis Park is doing a good job of providing for my household's park and recreation needs. nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Community Recreation Survey Results Page 26 Page 3 Community, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities Survey 2. Following is a list of park and recreation facilities that were identified during the recent City Visioning process. We need your help in determining “what’s missing” in parks and recreation in St. Louis Park. Please indicate how important you think it is to ADD each facility to the City. “1” means it is not all important to add the facility; “5” means it is extremely important to add the facility to those already offered to residents. Click on the number that best represents your opinion. 1 = Not at all important to add 3 = Somewhat important to add 5 = Extremely important to add Swimming pool - indoor nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Upgrades to, or expansion of, current outdoor water park nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Indoor track nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Indoor exercise equipment nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Indoor playground (play area; play equipment, etc.) nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Natural open spaces nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Trails for walking, biking, rollerblading, etc. nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Lighted athletic fields (existing fields) nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Artificial turf with a dome nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Artificial turf without a dome nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Art facility for visual arts (painting, sculpture, etc.) nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Art facility for performing arts (dance, music, etc.) nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Indoor recreation space/gyms for multiple uses nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Indoor spaces for healthy living classes (general exercise, yoga, tai chi, etc.) nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Disc golf course nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Community meeting space nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Other recreation facility (please specify) Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Community Recreation Survey Results Page 27 Page 4 Community, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities Survey 3. Of the facilities listed above, please SELECT THE THREE facilities that you think are MOST IMPORTANT to add to those offered by St. Louis Park’s Park & Recreation. * Swimming pool – indoor gfedc Upgrades to, or expansion of, existing water park gfedc Indoor track gfedc Indoor exercise equipment gfedc Indoor playground (play area, play equipment, etc.) gfedc Natural open spaces gfedc Trails for walking, biking, rollerblading, etc. gfedc Lighted athletic fields (existing fields) gfedc Artificial turf with a dome gfedc Artificial turf without a dome gfedc Art facility for visual arts (painting, sculpture, etc.) gfedc Art facility for performing arts (dance, music, etc.) gfedc Indoor recreation space/gyms for multiple uses gfedc Indoor spaces for healthy living classes (general exercise, yoga, tai chi, etc.) gfedc Disc golf course gfedc Community meeting space gfedc Other recreation facility (please specify) Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Community Recreation Survey Results Page 28 Page 5 Community, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities Survey 4. To what extent do the following limit you/your household’s use of public parks, trails and participation in recreation activities or programs? Click on the number that best represents your opinion. 1 = Not at all 3 = Some 5 = A great deal Lack of time nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Lack of transportation nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Too far to travel nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Cost of programs & facilities nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Facilities are not suited to my needs nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Programs are not to my liking nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Cultural barriers nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Lack of information about facilities and programs nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Level of quality of parks and facilities nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Personal health issues nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Cultural beliefs & restrictions nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Concern about personal safety nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Companion – no one to do things with nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Don’t feel welcome by other park users nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Don’t feel welcome by park staff nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Facilities are not physically accessible to me nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Days that facilities are open nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Hours that facilities are open nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Community Recreation Survey Results Page 29 Page 6 Community, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities Survey 5. What else, if anything, is missing in parks and recreation in St. Louis Park, that if present, would make the City a better place to live? 6. If you could change one thing about park and recreation facilities in St. Louis Park, what would that one thing be? 7. The City would like to know if the need for additional recreation facilities and/or gathering places varies by age group. Please indicate how important you think it is to provide additional recreation facilities and/or gathering places for each of the following age groups. "1" means it is not at all important to add recreation facilities/gathering places for that age group; "5" means it is extremely important to add recreation facilities/gathering places for that age group. 8. If you think more public gathering places (e.g., Rec Center, coffee shops, parks, etc.) are needed, what types of things would you want to be able to do in those places? 9. In what other ways could the City of St. Louis Park make a positive difference in meeting the park and recreation needs of your household? 55 66 55 66 1 = Not at all important 3 = Somewhat important 5 = Extremely important Under 5 years old nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj 6 - 12 years old nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj 13 - 17 years old nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj 18 - 34 years old nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj 35 - 54 years old nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Over 55 years old nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj 55 66 55 66 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Community Recreation Survey Results Page 30 Page 7 Community, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities Survey 10. If the City is not able to pay for “What’s missing in parks and recreation” under the current budget, how much would you be WILLING TO PAY IN ADDITIONAL USER FEES to add what’s missing? 11. If the City is not able to pay for “What’s missing in parks and recreation” under the current budget, how much would you be WILLING TO PAY IN ADDITIONAL TAXES to add what’s missing? 12. Any additional comments? 55 66 $0/month nmlkj $3/month nmlkj $6/month nmlkj $9/month nmlkj Other (please specify) $0/month nmlkj $3/month nmlkj $6/month nmlkj $9/month nmlkj Other (please specify) Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Community Recreation Survey Results Page 31 Page 8 Community, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities Survey The following questions will help us better understand the needs of different groups of people. Your responses are completely confidential. Check only one response per question, unless otherwise indicated. Below is a map of St. Louis Park. Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Community Recreation Survey Results Page 32 Page 9 Community, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities Survey 13. Which neighborhood do you live in? 14. Are there people in your household (Check all that apply)? Amhurst nmlkj Aquila nmlkj Birchwood nmlkj Blackstone nmlkj Bronx Park nmlkj Brooklawns nmlkj Brookside nmlkj Browndale nmlkj Cedar Manor nmlkj Cedarhurst nmlkj Cobblecrest nmlkj Creekside nmlkj Crestview nmlkj Eliot nmlkj Eliot View nmlkj Elmwood nmlkj Fern Hill nmlkj Kilmer Pond nmlkj Lake Forest nmlkj Lenox nmlkj Meadowbrook nmlkj Minikahda Oaks nmlkj Minikahda Vista nmlkj Minnehaha nmlkj Oak Hill nmlkj Pennsylvania Park nmlkj Shelard Park nmlkj Sorensen nmlkj South Oak Hill nmlkj Texa Tonka nmlkj Triangle nmlkj Westdale nmlkj Westwood Hills nmlkj Willow Park nmlkj Wolfe Park nmlkj Don’t know nmlkj Under 5 years old gfedc 6 – 12 years old gfedc 13 – 17 years old gfedc 18 - 34 years old gfedc 35 – 54 years old gfedc Over 55 years old gfedc Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Community Recreation Survey Results Page 33 Page 10 Community, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities Survey 15. Where does your household get information about St. Louis Park parks and recreation? (Check all that apply) 16. Optional – We will need this information if you want to receive a complimentary daily admission to the Aquatic Park! Name: Address: City/Town: ZIP: Email Address: News media gfedc Online gfedc Neighborhood association gfedc Athletic association gfedc Word-of-mouth gfedc Recreation centers gfedc Park brochures & publications gfedc Other (please specify) Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Community Recreation Survey Results Page 34 Page 11 Community, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities SurveyCommunity, Park & Recreation & Civic Facilities Survey Thanks so much for your input! If you have any questions, please contact Jamie Zwilling, Communications Coordinator at jzwilling@stlouispark.org. Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 3) Subject: Community Recreation Survey Results Page 35 Meeting Date: February 28, 2011 Agenda Item #: 4 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Fire Stations Project Update. RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action is required. Staff would like to discuss with the City Council two policy questions related to the fire stations, and update City Council on the fire stations site and building planning, project schedule and cost estimates. POLICY CONSIDERATION: There are two policy issues related to the fire station plans that need direction from City Council. The specific policy questions include: • Are the proposed terms for a replacement easement with Walgreens/Little Caesars to accommodate the Fire Station No. 2 plan acceptable? • Should the City proceed into the Bidding Phase? BACKGROUND: Staff and consultants presented a complete update at the end of the Design Development Phase to City Council at a study session on November 15, 2010. At that meeting the City Council provided direction: • To pursue a high efficiency boiler/chiller system, rather than a geothermal system, for both fire stations. • To continue to follow the City’s Green Building Policy, but not seek U.S. Green Building Council Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design certification for either fire station. • To proceed with the Construction Documents design phase. Since the November 2010 study session, City Council has reviewed and approved zoning and subdivision applications for the two sites. Also, the three City-owned houses south of Fire Station No. 1 were demolished. At this time, the Fire Stations Project is nearing the end of the third design phase (Construction Documents). In the Construction Documents Phase, the architect and engineers are preparing detailed working drawings and specifications, which contractors will use to establish actual construction cost and build the project. The City and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District are also reviewing these plans for construction permits. The final construction drawings and specifications will become part of the construction contracts. Cost Estimates Construction Manager Kraus-Anderson estimates the total project cost for both stations to be $15,471,109. This is $45,088 below the budget approved by City Council. These estimates were based on Construction Drawings prepared by the team of DLR Group KKE, Bonestroo and SRF Consulting Group that were approximately 85% complete in January 2011. Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 4) Page 2 Subject: Fire Stations Project Update At the end of the Design Development Phase in November 2010, in addition to Kraus Anderson’s cost estimate, an independent firm (Faithful & Gould) provided a second cost estimate and helped confirm the fire station designs were on budget. That exercise was not repeated for the Construction Documents Phase. Schedule A detailed project schedule that lists activities through May 2011 is attached for your information. As City Council is aware, the two stations are being designed, bid and built concurrently. The existing Fire Station No. 2 building would remain in operation while the new building is constructed next to it. A temporary fire station would be operated from the Municipal Services Center site. Completion of construction is estimated to be in May 2012. TOPICS TO DISCUSS: The architect, construction manager and staff will begin the study session with a 25-minute presentation to the City Council. The remaining time will be devoted to City Council questions and discussion on the main policy issues: • Fire Station No. 2/Walgreens outline of terms and conditions • Proceeding with Bidding Process. Fire Station No. 2/Walgreens There is an existing easement that encumbers both the Walgreens property and Northside Park. This easement provides for shared ingress and egress from Louisiana Avenue and shared parking in a parking lot located directly north of the Walgreens building and on the southeast corner of Northside Park. The City needs to use the existing easement area for driveway, retaining walls, grading, and storm water management for the new Fire Station No. 2 plan. Staff has been meeting with the property owner, MN 7200 LLC, to negotiate a new easement (to replace the existing easement). The proposed new easement would shift 10 of the 15 stalls on the Northside Park that the City shares with Walgreens to the south side of Fire Station No. 2. The easement would allow City employees/officials to access Northside Park through the Walgreens property. Attached for your review is an outline of proposed terms and conditions for a new ingress, egress, and parking easement. If City Council is comfortable with the outline, staff will work with the owner and tenant to prepare the necessary agreements and exhibits for City Council approval. Staff believes these terms will expedite the approval process and allow the City to maintain the proposed construction schedule. Bidding Phase Architect Mike Clark will provide a very brief review of the plans. There are few, if any, significant changes to the plans since November. City staff is wrapping up its review of the plans and specifications for the project. Staff would like City Council to approve the plans and specifications and to authorize advertisement for bids at the March 7, 2011 regular meeting. The City will be the general contractor for the project. Kraus Anderson is the construction manager and will supervise the sites and help administer the contracts. There will be 22 separate bid items for each fire station. This allows contractors to bid on one or more components of the project (i.e. plumbing, HVAC, etc.), and allows them to bid on either one or both stations. The Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 4) Page 3 Subject: Fire Stations Project Update City will be able to select the lowest combination of bids. We expect this to boost competition for the project. Another strategy that will be used to help protect the budget is to include several alternates in the bid documents. Some of these will be “deduct alternates” that the City could choose to cut from the project if bids come in over budget. The Construction Manager and Architect are working together to try to identify approximately $100,000 worth of deduct alternates. An example of a “deduct alternate” may include operable windows (widows that can be opened by building occupants). This is an item that can be changed without impacting the building design. Operable windows are desirable, especially in the sleeping quarters, and they are also considered a sustainability measure since they provide personal control of atmospheric conditions. However, they could be downgraded if it was necessary to maintain the budget. There are also some “add alternates” that would be upgrades or additions that staff would like to get bids on. These items are not included in the cost estimate provided by Kraus Anderson. These items could be added with City Council approval if the bids come in below budget. An example would be upgrading to a natural gas generator rather than a diesel generator. The natural gas generator is expected to be somewhat more expensive, but may be more desirable since it does not have to be refueled every 24 hours during an emergency. NEXT STEPS: • Finalize Bid Documents (immediately) • City Council to consider approval of plans and specifications, and authorization to advertise for bids (March 7, 2011) • Bid Opening (March 31, 2011) • City Council to consider awarding bids (April 18, 2011) FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The proposed project cost estimates of the fire station designs is within the $15.5 million budget. VISION CONSIDERATION: Engaging the community in the design process, minimizing negative impacts of the stations on surrounding residents, designing energy efficient buildings that meet or exceed the City’s green building policy, and building an aesthetically pleasing building relate to all four Vision St. Louis Park Strategic directions. Attachments: Kraus Anderson Project Cost Estimates Project Schedule (through May 2011) Outline of Proposed Terms and Conditions • Map Illustrations (Existing, Changes, Proposed) Site Plans, Floor Plans, and Exterior Building Images Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Luke Stemmer, Fire Chief Cindy Walsh, Parks and Recreation Director Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Date: 2/17/2011 Revision #:1 Revision Date: 2/22/2011 Owner:City of St. Louis Park Project Start: Spring 2011 Project:Fire Stations #1 & #2 Completion: TBD Location:St. Louis Park Tax Percent: TBD Designer:DLR Group/KKE % Cost Escalation: TBD Description Fire Station #1 Fire Station #2 TOTALS Remarks Project Funds Available $0 $0 $15,516,197 Interest Earnings $0 Total Available Dollars $0 $0 $15,516,197 Construction Costs Budget Building & Site Construction $7,242,055 $4,558,464 $11,800,520 Project General Conditions $0 $0 $0 In Estimate CM Site Services $0 $0 $502,335 Kraus-Anderson CM Fee $0 $0 $157,500 Kraus-Anderson Construction Contingency $289,682 $182,339 $472,021 Assumed 4% of Construction Xcel Energy Charges $7,000 $7,000 $14,000 Based on Prelim Meetings with Xcel -$0 $0 $0 Total Construction Budget $7,538,737 $4,747,803 $12,946,375 Soft Cost Budget A/E Fees $0 $0 $498,750 DLR/KKE A&E Project Reimbursable or Constr. Admin.$0 $0 $24,000 DLR/KKE Overall Project Budget - Construction Document Estimate Description Fire Station #1 Fire Station #2 TOTALS Remarks Geothermal Drilling / Report $14,062 $14,063 $28,125 Braun Reports Storm Water Charges, Requirements $0 $0 $0 City Approval Fees & Park Ded.$0 $0 $0 City Administration Costs $1,283 $0 $1,283 Travel / Site Visits $0 $11 $11 Misc. Owner Expenses $71 $6,500 $6,571 Misc. Owner Expenses - Storage Costs $16,800 $16,800 $33,600 Belt Line Properties Tree Replacement Fund $0 $0 $20,585 FS #1 & FS #2 Platting Costs $3,250 $3,250 $6,500 Builders Risk Insurance $0 $0 $10,907 Preliminary Quote Total Owner Costs Budget $1,304,066 $328,624 $1,705,116 Total Project Costs $8,951,673 $5,164,149 $15,471,109 Constr. Cost + Soft Costs + Owner Costs Project Balance Available $45,088 Value Engineering & Recommend savings $0 $0 $0 Adjusted Project Balance $0 $0 $45,088 SLP CD estimate 2-22-11 - Owner-Project Budget Costs Page 2 of 2 Print Date: 2/22/2011 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 4) Subject: Fire Stations Project Update Page 5 Date: 2/17/2011 Revision # 1 Fire Station #1 Revision Date: 2/22/2011 CD Estimate Owner:City of St. Louis Park Project Start: Spring 2011 Project:Two New Replacement Fire Stations Completion: TBD Location:St. Louis Park,MN Tax Percent: TBD Designer:DLR Group/KKE % Cost Escalation: TBD $201.62 / SF Building Area:30,695 SF $235.69 / SF Total Project Manager: Pat Sims Brian Hook Item Unit Cost/ Item Description Quantity UOM Unit Cost Bldg. Area Dir. Cost Total Cost SUMMARY: BUILDING STRUCTURE $41.44 $1,279,626 EXTERIOR ENCLOSURE - SHELL $42.93 $1,317,801 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION $32.58 $999,926 EQUIPMENT & FURNISHINGS $3.23 $99,100 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION $0.00 $0 CONVEYING SYSTEMS $2.12 $65,000 MECHANICAL $44.85 $1,376,738 ELECTRICAL $25.25 $775,000 GENERAL CONDITIONS $9.22 $282,992 PERMITS, INSURANCE & TESTING $0.00 $0 Date: 2/17/2011 Revision # 1 Fire Station #1 Revision Date: 2/22/2011 CD Estimate Owner:City of St. Louis Park Project Start: Spring 2011 Project:Two New Replacement Fire Stations Completion: TBD Location:St. Louis Park,MN Tax Percent: TBD Designer:DLR Group/KKE % Cost Escalation: TBD $201.62 / SF Building Area:30,695 SF $235.69 / SF Total Project Manager: Pat Sims Brian Hook Item Unit Cost/ Item Description Quantity UOM Unit Cost Bldg. Area Dir. Cost Total Cost Date: 2/17/2011 Revision # 1 Fire Station #1 Revision Date: 2/22/2011 CD Estimate Owner:City of St. Louis Park Project Start: Spring 2011 Project:Two New Replacement Fire Stations Completion: TBD Location:St. Louis Park,MN Tax Percent: TBD Designer:DLR Group/KKE % Cost Escalation: TBD $201.62 / SF Building Area:30,695 SF $235.69 / SF Total Project Manager: Pat Sims Brian Hook Item Unit Cost/ Item Description Quantity UOM Unit Cost Bldg. Area Dir. Cost Total Cost Date: 2/17/2011 Revision # 1 Fire Station #1 Revision Date: 2/22/2011 CD Estimate Owner:City of St. Louis Park Project Start: Spring 2011 Project:Two New Replacement Fire Stations Completion: TBD Location:St. Louis Park,MN Tax Percent: TBD Designer:DLR Group/KKE % Cost Escalation: TBD $201.62 / SF Building Area:30,695 SF $235.69 / SF Total Project Manager: Pat Sims Brian Hook Item Unit Cost/ Item Description Quantity UOM Unit Cost Bldg. Area Dir. Cost Total Cost Date: 2/17/2011 Revision # 1 Fire Station #2 Revision Date: 2/22/2011 CD Estimate Owner:City of St. Louis Park Project Start: Spring 2011 Project:Two New Replacement Fire Stations Completion: TBD Location:St. Louis Park,MN Tax Percent: TBD Designer:DLR Group/KKE % Cost Escalation: TBD $212.98 / SF Building Area:16,760 SF $271.69 / SF Total Project Manager: Pat Sims Brian Hook Item Unit Cost/ Item Description Quantity UOM Unit Cost Bldg. Area Dir. Cost Total Cost SUMMARY: BUILDING STRUCTURE $44.48 $750,495 EXTERIOR ENCLOSURE - SHELL $38.09 $638,406 INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION $31.11 $521,397 EQUIPMENT & FURNISHINGS $3.16 $52,950 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION $0.00 $0 CONVEYING SYSTEMS $0.00 $0 MECHANICAL $50.23 $841,890 ELECTRICAL $32.52 $545,000 GENERAL CONDITIONS $13.39 $224,407 PERMITS, INSURANCE & TESTING $0.00 $0 Date: 2/17/2011 Revision # 1 Fire Station #2 Revision Date: 2/22/2011 CD Estimate Owner:City of St. Louis Park Project Start: Spring 2011 Project:Two New Replacement Fire Stations Completion: TBD Location:St. Louis Park,MN Tax Percent: TBD Designer:DLR Group/KKE % Cost Escalation: TBD $212.98 / SF Building Area:16,760 SF $271.69 / SF Total Project Manager: Pat Sims Brian Hook Item Unit Cost/ Item Description Quantity UOM Unit Cost Bldg. Area Dir. Cost Total Cost Date: 2/17/2011 Revision # 1 Fire Station #2 Revision Date: 2/22/2011 CD Estimate Owner:City of St. Louis Park Project Start: Spring 2011 Project:Two New Replacement Fire Stations Completion: TBD Location:St. Louis Park,MN Tax Percent: TBD Designer:DLR Group/KKE % Cost Escalation: TBD $212.98 / SF Building Area:16,760 SF $271.69 / SF Total Project Manager: Pat Sims Brian Hook Item Unit Cost/ Item Description Quantity UOM Unit Cost Bldg. Area Dir. Cost Total Cost ActIDDescriptionOrigDurEarlyStartEarlyFinish2010JUL2011AUGSEPOCTNOVDECJANFEBMARAPRMAYJUNJULAUGSEPOCTNOVPreConstruction Phase Schematic Design Phase1070 Schematic Design Approval002AUG10Design Development Phase1150 Design Development Approval015NOV10Construction Document Phase1160Construction Documents Phase7215NOV1022FEB111170 Prepare Construction Documents5415NOV1027JAN111210 Watershed Review of C-D Design2518JAN11 21FEB111280 Prepare C-D Estimate1101FEB11 15FEB111180 Owner Review of C-D Design1014FEB1125FEB111190 Building Code Review of C-D Design1014FEB11 25FEB111290 Cost Verification of C-D Estimate017FEB111330 Submit Packet for Council Workshop023FEB111220 Review Comment Responses528FEB1104MAR111270 Present C-D at Council Workshop028FEB111340 City Council Approval to go out for Bids007MAR111230 Issue Final CD's for Bidding007MAR11Bid/Award of Subcontracts3600Ad For Bids (Publish Dates 3/17 & 3/24)008MAR113610Bid Period1708MAR1130MAR113620Bid Opening031MAR113630Post Bid Review Period/Bid Verification1231MAR11 15APR113640City Council Award of Bids018APR111550Owner Move Out1519APR1109MAY113650Contracts/Insurance/Bond Procurement1519APR1109MAY111240Issuance of Permits and Misc. Approvals021APR113660Construction Mobilization FS #1 & FS #21026APR1109MAY111580Station Abatement FS #11010MAY11 23MAY111600Construction/Earthwork FS #2010MAY111560Disconnect Utilities/Demo FS #1517MAY1123MAY111590Construction/Earthwork FS #1024MAY11 Schematic Design Approval Design Development ApprovalConstruction Documents Phase Prepare Construction Documents Watershed Review of C-D Design Prepare C-D Estimate Owner Review of C-D Design Building Code Review of C-D Design Cost Verification of C-D Estimate Submit Packet for Council Workshop Review Comment Responses Present C-D at Council Workshop City Council Approval to go out for Bids Issue Final CD's for BiddingAd For Bids (Publish Dates 3/17 & 3/24)Bid PeriodBid OpeningPost Bid Review Period/Bid VerificationCity Council Award of BidsOwner Move OutContracts/Insurance/Bond ProcurementIssuance of Permits and Misc. ApprovalsConstruction Mobilization FS #1 & FS #2Station Abatement FS #1Construction/Earthwork FS #2Disconnect Utilities/Demo FS #1Construction/Earthwork FS #1Start date 01JUL10Finish date 23MAY11Data date 01JUL10Run date 02FEB11Page number 1A© Primavera Systems, Inc.Kraus Anderson Construction CompanySt. Louis Park Fire StationsEarly barProgress barCritical barSummary barStart milestone pointFinish milestone pointStudy Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 4) Subject: Fire Stations Project UpdatePage 13 Outline of Proposed Terms and Conditions Below is an outline of the terms and conditions proposed for the new shared ingress, egress and parking easement between the City and Walgreens/Retail Tenants at the Fire Station No. 2 site. On the following pages there are three sketches illustrating the existing conditions, changes, and proposed plan. 1. The existing easements will be terminated in their entirety. 2. A new easement will be executed to allow for mutual access over the North drive aisle, allow for the Walgreens/Retail Tenants’ shared use of ten (10) new parking stalls to be provided by the City along the North side of the drive aisle; allow for access across the drive aisles to the Park property for city officials and maintenance only (no public access and no parking easements will be provided); the Walgreens/Retail Tenants will be required to maintain the easement areas. 3. Existing property lines to remain. 4. Scope of Work: City shall install and/or repair all the required curb and gutter; storm water requirements for proper drainage and detention; utility relocations; landscaping; patch, repair, seal coat and restripe all affected drive aisles and parking areas; maintain no less than twenty eight (28) parking stalls north of the Walgreens/Retail Tenants building and ten (10) new parking stalls along the North side of the drive aisle; all pursuant to a site plan approved by the parties. 5. City will provide a zoning letter confirming that upon completion, the property will comply with all City requirements, rules and regulations. 6. City will pay for all out of pocket costs and expenses of Owner and Walgreens for review, approval documentation, and recording of the necessary documents. 7. City will keep the access point and drive aisles open at all times during the construction process. Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 4) Subject: Fire Stations Project Update Page 14 EXISTING Page 1 LEGEND Exclusive Parking and Access for Walgreens/Retail Tenant Exclusive Public Parking Shared Parking and Access Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 4) Subject: Fire Stations Project Update Page 15 CHANGES Page 2 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 4) Subject: Fire Stations Project Update Page 16 LEGEND PROPOSED Page 3 Exclusive Parking and Access for Walgreens/Retail Tenant Exclusive Public Parking Shared Parking and Access Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 4) Subject: Fire Stations Project Update Page 17 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 4) Subject: Fire Stations Project UpdatePage 18 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 4) Subject: Fire Stations Project UpdatePage 19 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 4) Subject: Fire Stations Project Update Page 21 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 4) Subject: Fire Stations Project Update Page 22 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 4) Subject: Fire Stations Project UpdatePage 23 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 4) Subject: Fire Stations Project UpdatePage 24 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 4) Subject: Fire Stations Project UpdatePage 25 Meeting Date: February 28, 2011 Agenda Item #: 5 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Deer Update. RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this report and study session discussion is to update the Council on the status of the deer herd in St. Louis Park and past action and history on this matter. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the City Council interested in further study or action regarding the deer population in the City of St. Louis Park in 2011 or for future years? BACKGROUND: The City of St. Louis Park has researched and taken action on the management of deer since 1993. The information attached gives a chronological account of information gathered and council action taken over the past 18 years. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time. VISION CONSIDERATION: Wildlife management falls under the second strategic direction “St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship”. Attachments: 2011 Summary of Deer Update Information for Council Previous Deer Reports to Council, 1993 – 2003 - Summary of Deer Management Task Force Oct. 1993 - Resolution 94-21 need for environmental review of a deer management program - Ordinance 94-1995 prohibiting deer feeding - Council Agenda Report Feb. 1997 & Resolution 97-13 lifting moratorium on deer removal - Council Agenda Report Feb. 2001 & Resolution 01-016 not to order EAW for deer management plan Lake Forest/Fern Hill neighborhoods - Memo to Deer Management Task Force Oct. 2001 - Deer Management Task Force Meeting agenda April 2003 Deer Calls & Accidents Report, 2007 - 2011 2011 Aerial Deer Survey Prepared by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager February 28, 2011 Summary of Deer Information to Council 1. Summary of Initial Deer Management Task Force 1993. 2. Resolution 94-21 concerning the need for environmental review of Deer Management Program for Westwood Hills Nature Center and surrounding area was passed on February 22, 1994. 3. Ordinance 94-1995 prohibiting feeding of deer passed on May 2, 1994. 4. Resolution 97-13 and council report amending St. Louis Park Deer Management Program Rescinding Moratorium on requests for the removal of deer passed on February 3, 1997. 5. February and March of 2001 traps were set in the Lake Forest and Fern Hill neighborhoods. No deer were taken because traps were sabotaged. 6. City Council Agenda Item 7c dated February 20, 2001 – Consideration of a citizen petition requesting an Environmental Assessment Worksheet prior to continuing deer removal in the City of St. Louis Park. Resolution was passed to not perform an EAW in the Lake Forest and Fern Hill neighborhoods. 7. Memo to Deer Management Task Force dated October 22, 2001 from Charlie Meyer, City Manager, defining the purpose of a new task force for the Lake Forest and Fern Hill neighborhoods. 8. Some task force members reconvened on April 8, 2003. No decisions were made or action taken at that time. Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 5) Subject: Deer Update Page 2 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 5) Subject: Deer Update Page 3 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 5) Subject: Deer Update Page 4 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 5) Subject: Deer Update Page 5 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 5) Subject: Deer Update Page 6 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 5) Subject: Deer Update Page 7 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 5) Subject: Deer Update Page 8 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 5) Subject: Deer Update Page 9 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 5) Subject: Deer Update Page 10 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 5) Subject: Deer Update Page 11 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 5) Subject: Deer Update Page 12 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 5) Subject: Deer Update Page 13 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 5) Subject: Deer Update Page 14 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 5) Subject: Deer Update Page 15 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 5) Subject: Deer Update Page 16 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 5) Subject: Deer Update Page 17 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 5) Subject: Deer Update Page 18 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 5) Subject: Deer Update Page 19 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 5) Subject: Deer Update Page 20 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 5) Subject: Deer Update Page 21 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 5) Subject: Deer Update Page 22 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 5) Subject: Deer Update Page 23 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 5) Subject: Deer Update Page 24 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 5) Subject: Deer Update Page 25 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 5) Subject: Deer Update Page 26 Deer Reports 2007-2011 (as of 2/22/22) Complaints Police (Calls) Police (Accidents) 2007 4 18 6 2008 12 17 6 2009 2 6 3 2010 4 11 5 2011 5 3 0 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 5) Subject: Deer Update Page 27 Golden Valley - St. Louis Park - Theodore Wirth 0 0 0 1 11 23 15 SOO L I N ECANADIAN PACIFICCHICAGO NORTHWESTERN B U R L I NGT ON NORTHERNTWIN C I T I E S W E S T E R N SOO L I N E SOO LINE BURLING T O N N O R T H E R N §¨¦394 §¨¦394 £¤169 £¤169 ")100 ")55 ")7 ")7 ")55 ")100 ")7 ")100 UV3 UV40 UV81 UV17 UV102 UV25 UV156 UV70 UV66 UV20 UV5 UV153 UV25 36TH AVE N 32ND AVE N THOMAS AVE NWAYZATA B LV D C E D A R L A K E R D LEE AVE NLAUREL AVE UPTON AVE NREGENT AVE NNOBLE AVE NVINCENT AVE NKYLE AVE N38TH ST W WALKER ST DULUTH ST KILMER LN N36TH ST W MAJOR AVE NOLYMPIA ST 10TH AVE N TH E O D O RE W IR T H P KWY LAKE ST W G O L D E N VALLEY RDFRANCE AVE N27TH ST WTEXAS AVE SLILAC DR N23RD AVE N WESTERN AVE OXFORD STMENDELSSOHN AVE NFLAG AVE SCULVER RD HIGHWAY 7BOONE AVE NKELLY DR35TH AVE N ZENITH AVE SFLORIDA AVE SGEORGIA AVE SSUMTER AVE N40TH ST W PLY M O U TH AVE N LOUISIANA AVE NCEDAR LAKE PKWYVALDERS AVELAK E ST N EHAMPSHIRE AVE NCALHOUN PKWY WPENNSYLVANIA AVE NQUEBEC AVE NBRUNSWICK AVE NLIB R A R Y L NORKLA DRJERSEY AVE SUNITY AV E N GRIMES AVE N32ND PL N CAMBRIDGE ST HIGHWAY 100 SMCNAIR DRLOUI S I A NA AVE S 26TH AVE N TRITON D R HALIFAX AVE NCOUNTRY CLUB DR COLORADO AVE S16TH ST WZANE AVE NFLORIDA AVE N27TH AVE N 28TH AVE N KNOLL ST N HAROLD AVE ALABAMA AVE SVERNON AVE SYORK AVE NDREW AVE NXENIA AVE NYATES AVE NABBOTT AVE SSANDBURG RD 37TH ST W C E DAR LAKE RD SWES L E Y D R 29TH AVE N XERXES AVE NCEDAR LAKE AVE GOR H A M A V E R I D G EWAY RDMANOR DRVALLEY PL P A R K GLEN RDAQUILA AVE N32ND ST W PATSY LN 35TH ST W BELT LINE BLVD34TH ST W INGLEWOOD AVE STOLEDO AVE SKIPLING AVE SPARK PL A C E B LVD SCLUB RD B E TTY C R O CKER DR JOPPA AVE SHANLEY RDADAIR AVE NBROOKVIEW PKWYSUNS ET B LVDMEADOW LN NLOWRY AVE N 39TH ST W WINSDALE ST N BURNHAM RDANGELO DRPARKVIEW B LVD OAKD A L E A V E N EARL ST HUNTINGTON AVE SH I G H W A Y 5 5 ZENITH AVE NKENTUCKY AVE N2 8 T H S T W NORTH ST VIRGINIA CIR N VALE CREST RDXENIA AVE SMARYLAND AVE SXYLON AVE N30TH AVE N ZARTHAN AVE SDO U G LA S AVE YORK AVE SXERXES AVE SFLAG AVE NWINNETKA AVE SWELCOME AVE NTURNERS XRD NBA S SWOOD R D DIVISION ST EDGEBRO OK DR UPTON AVE SWESTWOOD DR SNEVADA AVE NAL T H E A LN 25 1/2 ST W HAMILTON ST CIRCLE DNS QUAIL AVE NBURNTSIDE DRPARKVIEW TERHILL PL N VICTORY MEMORIAL DRS UNSET RDGISLAND D R ZINRAN AVE S31ST ST W GOODRICH AVEAQUILA LN SUTAH AVE NGLENHURST AVE SGOLDEN HILLS DR BEARD AVE SMEADOW LN S3 1 ST A VE N TURNERS XRD SMAJOR DRABBOTT AVE NELIOT VIEW RD JULIANNE TERNATCHEZ AVE N1ST ST NWENSIGN AVE NUTICA AVE S2 3 R D ST W NORTHERN DR BYRD AVE N WESTBEND RD 26 1/2 AVE N WEBSTER AVE SXENWOOD AVE S26TH ST W 16TH AVE N 21ST AVE N FORD RDORCHARD AVE NM O N TE R EY D RNEVADA AVE S3 6 1/2 ST WYOSEMITE AVE SQUENTIN AVE SBOONE A V E S ANN LN B A S S E TT CREEK D R VALLACHE R A V ENATCHEZ AVE SFRANKLIN AVE W IDAHO AVE SLINDSAY ST SHERIDAN AVE SBEARD AVE N33RD PL N WINNETKA AVE NRHODE ISLAND AVE SFARWELL AVE HAMPSHIRE LN N GENERAL MILLS BLVDSC OTT AV E NVINCENT AVE SK E W A NEE W AY LYNN AVE SVIRGINIA CIR S LAWN TERLORING LN R HODE I S L AND AVE N24TH ST WWESTMORELAND LN POPLAR DR OTT AWA AVE SDAWNVIEW TER W O O D D AL E A V E SOREGON AVE NTOLEDO AVE NHIAWATHA AVEHILLSBORO AVE NNAPER ST DONA LN SAINT CROIX AVE N SALEM AVE S22ND ST W Y U K O N AVE NOLSON MEMOR I A L HWY34T H A V E N PENNSYLVANIA AVE SOTTAWA AVE N34TH P L NPH O E NIX S T TURNPIK E RD 12TH AVE NINDEPENDENCE AVE NJUNE AVE SWISCONSIN AVE NPAISLEY LNGAMBLE DR T Y ROL TRL N PARK L NBRIDGEWATER RDC E D A R V IE W D RWINFIELD AVE NIVY LN FRANCE AVE SBIES DRCOVE DR 25T H S T W E D GEWOOD AVE NZEALAND AVE NEDGEMOOR DRQUEBEC AVE S18 T H ST W BURD PL OAK PARK AVE N YOSEMITE AVE NPERRY AVE NCOLONIAL D R 13TH AVE N S T A NLEN RD SAINT LOUIS AVERALEIGH AVE SWYNNWOOD RDGEORGIA AVE NEWING AVE NMARKET ST E L MDALE RD UTAH D R S X Y L O N AVE SCHESTNUT AVE W 14TH ST W MEAND ER RD DEA N C TCAMPBE LL D R JERSEY AVE N30 1/2 ST W 2 9 TH S T W WILLS PL33RD AVE N 6 T H AVE NCE DAR S HORE DR29TH P L N 34 1/2 ST W CEDARWOOD RD YUKON AVE SMCNAIR A V E N SUMTER AVE SADELL A V E N SANDRA LNWATERSTONE PLMED I C INE LAKE RDLANCASTER LN NJANALYN CIR CAV E L L A VE SVE RA CRUZ AVE NDRAKE RD DAKOTA AVE SUTAH AVE SAQUILA AVE STERRACE LNORDW A Y S TMARYLAND AVE NDREW AVE SHAMPSH I R E P L N FIELD DR TYLER AVE NINDIANA AVE NL A K E V I E W AVE S22ND LN W M O N I T O R S TIDAHO AVE NLE WIS RDR I DGE DRCHOWEN AVE SPARK E R R D 35TH PL N EWING AVE SWOLFE PKWY KINGS VALLEY RD DA H LB E R G D R 35 1/2 ST WEDGEWOOD AVE S2ND AVE N THOMAS AVE SROSE MNR WINDSOR WAYT A F T A V E S BRUNSWICK AVE SMONTEREY AVE SHAMPSHIRE AVE S18TH AVE N EWALD TER CORTLAWN CIR S KYLE PL LOWRY TER P A R K C E NTER BLVDMEDLEY LN N JUNE AVE NVIEWCREST LN TYRO L TRL SBLACKSTONE AVE SKILLARNEY DR13TH LN W PRINCETON AVE SKENTUCKY AVE SOREGON AVE SMADISON AVE W PHILLIPS PKWYLA K E L A N D A V E N VAN BUREN AVE NWALLY ST BENTON BLVD HAZEL LNBONNIE LN LEBER LN VIRGINIA AVE SHILLSBORO AVE S EDLIN PL 13 1/2 ST W 33RD ST W PARKDALE DR DECATUR AVE SGREEN VALLEY RD 24TH CT W HALGLO PL17TH AVE N GETTYSBURG AVE NMERRIBEE DR BROOKVIEW DR MARIE LN W H I L L L N S WESTMORE WAY DULUTH LN WASHBURN AVE S21ST ST WWASHBURN AVE NHAMPTON RD 8TH AVE N LIST PLOAK P A R K V I L L A G E D R32ND CIR NELGIN PL N 24TH AVE N WINNETKA H E IG H T S D R ROSE LN 30TH AVE N 1 8TH ST WTHOMAS AVE SUPTON AVE NFLAG AVE S30 1/2 ST WLILAC DR N30TH AVE N UTAH AVE SCAVELL AVE SPERRY AVE N30TH AVE N JERSEY AVE SGEORGIA AVE NUNITY AVE NZENITH AVE NINDIANA AVE N31ST AVE N XERXES AVE NFLAG AVE NBOONE AVE NBOONE AVE N36TH ST WEDGEWOOD AVE S37T H ST W 29TH ST W 26TH ST W HIGHWAY 100 SLAKE ST WYOSEMITE AVE SFLAG A V E SNATCHEZ AVE SLILAC DR N28TH ST W COLORADO AVE SKNOLL ST N 23RD ST W BLACKSTONE AVE S29TH AVE N JOPPA AVE SQUEBEC AVE SIDAHO AVE S37TH ST W 29TH ST W 34TH AV E N 14TH ST W 14TH ST W HAMPSHIRE AVE SFRANKLIN AVE W 27TH ST W HAMPTON RD 33RD ST WBOONE AVE S XYLON AVE SJOPPA AVE S39TH ST W 32ND ST W HIGHWAY 100 S25TH ST W 35TH AVE N KELLY DR35TH AVE N 26TH ST W EWING AVE NFLORIDA AVE NPERRY AVE NLOUISIANA AVE SSUMTER A V E S 31ST ST W K I L MER L N N31ST ST WMARYLAND AVE SXYLON AVE N28TH ST W WA S H B U R N A VE NHILLSBORO AVE NINDEPENDENCE AVE N36TH ST W 34TH AVE N OREGON AVE SYORK AVE N33RD ST W TOLEDO AVE SWAYZATA BLVD H IG H W AY 7PLYMOUTH AVE N 29TH AVE N JERSEY AVE SIDAHO AVE SZARTHAN AVE SNEVADA AVE SWAYZATA BLVD OTTAWA AVE SKENTUCKY AVE SHIGH WAY 55EDGEWOOD AVE NSALEM AVE S35TH ST W 34TH PL N 35TH AVE N WINSDALE ST N OXFORD ST SCOTT AVE N1 6T H ST W ALABAMA AVE S26TH ST W FRANCE AVE N31ST AVE N WAYZATA BLVDSUMTER AVE SINDIANA AVE N16TH S T W PENNSYLVANIA AVE SQUENTIN AVE S28TH ST WRHODE ISLAND AVE N22ND ST W ZANE AVE NCAMBRIDGE ST 31 S T AVE NALABAMA AVE SXENIA AVE N31ST ST W LYNN AVE S34TH AVE N 35TH AVE N 31ST AVE N UPTON AVE SXENWOOD AVE SPENNSYLVANIA AVE N29TH AVE N G O L D E N VALLEY RD 37TH ST W XERXES AVE NEWING AVE S18TH ST W HIGHWAY 100 S28TH ST W W A Y Z ATA BLV D BOONE AVE SEDGEWOOD AVE S36TH AVE N NEVADA AVE SXENWOOD AVE SO L S O N M E M O RIAL HWY 2 2 N D S T W DAKOTA AVE SDAKOTA AVE S34TH AVE N THOMAS AVE SKENTUCKY AVE SYORK AVE NMENDELSSOHN AVE NLILAC DR N8TH AVE N HAROLD AVEFLAG AVE NLYNN AVE SRALEIGH AVE SCED A R L A K E R D S 35TH ST WKILMER LN NWAYZATA BLVDJERSEY AVE NVALDERS AVEHAMPSHIRE AVE NOTTAWA AVE NOLSON MEMORIAL HWY 30TH AVE N EDGEWOOD AVE NRHODE ISLAND AVE NAQUILA AVE N34TH AVE N JERSEY AVE NZANE AVE NQUENTIN AVE S27TH ST WUTAH AVE SORKLA DRGO L D E N VALLEY RD 28TH ST W 10TH A VE N 33RD AVE N H IG H W A Y 7 INDIANA AVE N16TH ST W UTICA AVE SFLORIDA AVE SWEBSTER AVE SVIRGINIA AVE SYUKON AVE NGLENHURST AVE S22ND ST W 24TH ST W PLYMOUTH AVE N DREW AVE SOXFORD ST LILAC DR N UPTON AVE SDULUTH ST TEXAS AVE S27TH AVE N GEORGIA AVE NAerial Surveys AREA_NAME Golden Valley Theodore Wirth Park St. Louis Park Lakes 0 10.5 Miles ± This map is a compilation of data from varioussources and is provided "as is" without warrantyof any representation of accuracy, timeliness, orcompleteness. The user acknowledges and acceptsthe limitations of the Data, including the fact that theData is dynamic and in a constant state ofmaintenance, correction, and update. Aerial Deer Survey2010 and 2011 Department of: NRMCreated by: Steven Hogg Meeting Date: February 28, 2011 Agenda Item #: 6 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Telecommunications Advisory Commission 2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work Plan. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: The purpose of the report is to provide the City Council with the 2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work Plan for the Telecommunications Advisory Commission (TAC) POLICY CONSIDERATION: Are the actions of the TAC in alignment with the expectations of the City Council? Does the City Council wish to meet with the TAC to discuss the annual report and work plan? BACKGROUND: 2010 TAC Highlights The Telecommunications Advisory Commission officially met five times in 2010 and Commissioners remained involved in other ways including: Commissioners Browning, Dworsky, Hartman and Keeler attended the January 25 Council Study Session to discuss the Telecommunications Advisory Commission annual report and work plan for 2010. LocaLoop representatives were present and fielded many questions. Commissioner Browning provided information to CIO Clint Pires for the Google “fiber to the home” demonstration grants. Chair Browning contacted staff as needed to prepare or follow up on Commission activities. He also spent several days helping to adjust equipment installed in the control room to provide Educational channel 14 programming. Commissioner Keeler applied to the State Broadband Advisory Task Force, but was not selected. Commissioners Browning, Dworsky, Hartman and Keeler attended the MACTA annual conference in November. Fiber Optic opportunity and long term plan LocaLoop approached the City about using City-owned fiber as the backbone for a 4 G WiMax infrastructure, along with City water towers as antenna sites. During the negotiations with LocaLoop a key principle was making the most of the short term opportunity, but also planning for future uses of the City’s fiber. LocaLoop did not complete the agreement with the City, and Clint Pires asked for volunteers for a subcommittee to help with a long-term fiber plan. Commissioners Browning and Keeler volunteered for the subcommittee. Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 6) Page 2 Subject: Telecommunications Advisory Commission 2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work Plan Park TV/School District #283 Operations Agreement & related activities Communications Coordinator Jamie Zwilling provided background on the Operations Agreement negotiations, and at the May 13 TAC meeting the Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed agreement. After many years using several rooms at Lenox Community Center, John McHugh had to move Senior Video Club activities to City Hall because the School District needed the Lenox rooms for other uses. The School District installed a gate in the fence around the High School football field that made TV coverage much easier and safer. The District also provided keys to the studio, which is used weekly to record Park Update and occasionally by Community TV. School Board meetings are now available as VOD (video on demand) on a website in a video format compatible with Apple Macintosh computers. The City Hall control room was upgraded with a new server and character generator in August to provide Educational channel 14 programming, which includes live Web streaming of School Board meetings. Budget Background The Commission requested further background from staff on the Cable TV fund, franchise fees and the City budget. Staff provided the requested background at the August meeting, including franchise fee revenue graphs, the status of the 2006 equipment grant and the additional franchise required equipment grants totaling $300,000 before the franchise ends in January 2021. The Cable TV fund is expected to remain healthy to the end of the franchise and the current balance is $1.4 million. 2010 revenue and expenditures are break even. Wi-Fi Hotspots Subcommittee Three Hotspots were established in 2009 at the Rec Center, City Hall, and Westwood Hills Nature Center. The Lenox Community Center Hotspot was completed in 2010 with technical assistance from the School District. John McHugh facilitated the Wi-Fi Hotspots subcommittee which included Bruce Browning, David Dyer, Rick Dworsky, and Clint Pires. Comcast Complaints The number of complaint calls dropped significantly in 2010, from 76 in 2009 to 50 in 2010 (attached). Those complaint callers reported a total of 78 complaints, comparable to the 81 total complaints from 2009. Most complaints were quickly resolved after being referred to Comcast E-Care staff. It’s possible that Comcast’s introduction of a customer service guarantee in October 2009 has helped reduce the number of complaint calls. The guarantee says: • We will give you a 30-day, money-back guarantee on all our services. • We will treat you and your home with courtesy and respect. • We will answer your questions at your convenience. • We will offer easy-to-understand packages and provide you with a clear bill. • We will continually offer the best and most video choices. • We will quickly address any problem you experience. • We will schedule appointments at your convenience and be mindful of your time. Comcast Events Comcast converted the Basic 2 tier from analog to digital channels in October 2010, providing up to 3 digital adapters per household for no monthly charge. They communicated with customers through crawls on the affected cable channels, newspaper articles and ads, direct mail and two presentations at Commission meetings. Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 6) Page 3 Subject: Telecommunications Advisory Commission 2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work Plan Franchise Fee Audits of Time Warner & Comcast The Commission voted 5-0 to conclude the audits, while reserving the City’s right to pursue launch fees in a future audit of Comcast. The City collected a total of $4,880 for the two audits ($1,542 from Comcast and $3,338 from Time Warner) for which the City paid $11,875 in audit fees. Future of Cable Television Subcommittee In December, per a request from the City Council, Communications Coordinator Jamie Zwilling proposed a subcommittee to research the future of cable television and franchise fees and potential impacts to the Cable TV Fund, and to report back to the Commission and City Council. Commissioners Browning and Keeler volunteered for this subcommittee. Officers Bruce Browning served as Chair and Toby Keeler as Vice Chair for 2010. Telecommunications Commission Attendance: 2010 Commissioner 1/25/10 Council Study Session 2/11/10 5/13/10 8/19/10 10/21/10 No quorum 12/9/10 Total attended Bruce Browning (Chair) YES YES YES YES - YES 5 Toby Keeler (Vice Chair) YES - YES YES - YES 4 Rick Dworsky YES YES - YES YES - 4 Dale Hartman YES YES YES YES YES YES 6 Mike Mulligan - YES - - YES YES 3 Rolf Peterson - YES - YES - YES 3 Bill Theobald* NA NA YES YES - YES 3 Jenna Sheldon** NA NA NA NA NA YES 1 *Appointed 4/5/10 to replace David Dyer **Appointed 11/1/10 (Youth member) NA = not yet appointed to Commission FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable VISION CONSIDERATION: This report supports the strategic direction – St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. Attachments: Cable TV complaints received & logged by city staff 2006-2010 Telecommunications Advisory Commission Work Plan: 2011 Prepared by: Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator Reviewed by: Jamie Zwilling, Communications Coordinator Through: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 6) Page 4 Subject: Telecommunications Advisory Commission 2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work Plan Cable TV complaints received & logged by city staff 2006-2010 (Some customers reported more than one complaint) COMPLAINT CATEGORY COMPLAINTS 2006 COMPLAINTS 2007 COMPLAINTS 2008 COMPLAINTS 2009 COMPLAINTS 2010 Billing 36 19 30 28 17 Construction (e.g., right of way, unburied cable, property damage) 3 0 2 3 0 Customer Service/ Relations (e.g., missed or late appointments, company response to issue, attitude) 3 8 7 0 7 Installation (e.g., property damage) 0 0 0 0 0 Programming Options (lost channels, want new channels) 12 27 16 6 2 Rates, prices 3 22 16 7 9 Technical Service (e.g., outage, reception, equipment faulty/lack of features) 15 3 15 10 14 Service Requests (e.g., residential/commercial) 0 0 0 0 0 Telephone Customer Service (on hold, busy, no one available) 12 10 9 8 8 Miscellaneous 3 8 9 14 11 Total Cable Service Complaints 87 97 99 76 68 Digital Voice/Telephone 2 2 3 2 3 Cable Modem/Internet Issues 18 13 6 3 7 Combined Total of All Processed Complaints (includes Telephone & Internet) 107 112 108 81 78 Average complaints per month reported to city staff 8.9 9.3 9.8 6.75 6.5 Total complaint calls (some callers mention more than 1 complaint) 89 85 83 76 50 Approx number of subscribers on average for the year 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 6) Page 5 Subject: Telecommunications Advisory Commission 2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work Plan 2011 Telecommunications Commission Work Plan Written Annual Report to City Council: February 28, 2011 Joint meeting at Council Study Session? If requested by Council; possibly March 14 or 28 February 10 • GrandStadium.tv update (GrandStadium.tv is an full-featured Internet broadcasting organization with exclusive rights to webcast high school post-season sports that are broadcast on KSTC-TV Channel 45. TAC is considering an agreement with GrandStadium,tv that would allow content sharing between GrandStadium.tv and the city) • Consider Periodic Review as described in Comcast/City cable franchise • Consider franchise fee audit notice by June 30, 2011 if Commission chooses to recommend an audit for: July 1, 2008-June 30, 2011. • Discuss goals of “future of cable TV” subcommittee April 7 • Fiber optic long range planning / ordinance research update • School District updates and Communication Plan • Update on new Clear 4G service July 14 • Progress report from subcommittee to report on the future of cable TV • Fiber optic long range planning/ordinance research update October 6 • Comcast customer service update • Progress report from subcommittee to report on the future of cable TV • Fiber optic long range planning / ordinance research update December 8 • Comcast presentation on new cable rates and/or changes in the channel line up • Draft Annual Report for 2011 • Set meetings for 2012 • Draft Work Plan for 2012 • Elect Chair & Vice Chair, effective next meeting Meeting Date: February 28, 2011 Agenda Item #: 7 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Housing Authority 2010 Annual Report & 2011 Work Plan. RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with the Housing Authority’s (HA) annual report through December 31, 2010 and the work plan for fiscal year ending December 31, 2011. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Are the actions of the Housing Authority in alignment with the Councils expectations? Does the City Council wish to meet with the Housing Authority board to discuss the annual report and work plan? BACKGROUND: The City Council has requested copies of each commission’s work plan and annual report. The HA’s “annual” Action Plan outlining activities guiding the work of the HA throughout its current fiscal year with updates noting activities already accomplished is attached for the Council’s review and discussion. The HA Action Plan run concurrent with the HA’s fiscal year, April 1, 2010 through December 31, 2011. The HA is currently in the middle of a twenty-one month fiscal year as it transitions from a fiscal year start date of April 1 to January 1. 2010 - 2011 St. Louis Park Authority Board Members Catherine Courtney, Chairperson Justin Kaufman, Vice-chair Renee DuFour, Secretary Trinicia Hill Susan Metzger St. Louis Park Housing Authority Staff Kevin Locke, Director Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor Teresa Schlegel, Housing Manager Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator Cindy Stromberg, Section 8 Manager Tanya Warren, Public Housing Specialist Abe Shariff, Maintenance Coordinator Joe Wellentin, Maintenance Technician Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 7) Page 2 Subject: Housing Authority 2010 Annual Report & 2011 Work Plan 2010 HA Highlights Provided rental assistance to over 500 low-income households under the Public Housing Program, Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program and Shelter Plus Care Program. Maintained HUD’s High Performer status for the administration of both the Section 8 Voucher and Public Housing Programs. Worked with funding partners to finalize the financial restructuring of Louisiana Court, provided additional resources for rehab and lowered the debt service by more than half. Staff continued to participate on the Louisiana Court Development Oversight Committee. Developed the Louisiana Court Shallow Rental Assistance Program matching available affordable housing to Section 8 rental assistance waiting list applicants. Continued to administer 45 units of Project Based rental assistance vouchers at Wayside’s supportive housing development, Vail Place and Excelsior and Grand. Exceeded 98% annual occupancy in the Public Housing program and 100% annual utilization in the Section 8 Voucher rental assistance program. Modified the Green Remodeling Incentive Program to take advantage of the Energy Saver Rebates offered by the state for energy related improvements. Three residents utilized the green remodeling advisor services in 2010 and forty-two residents received energy rebates for installation of energy efficient furnaces, water heaters and air conditioners. The Live Where You Work Homeownership assistance program has assisted seven participants to date. The Excess Land Program lot on Louisiana Ave. was sold. A home is currently under construction and schedule for completion this spring. The Sunset Ridge Condo Association Housing Improvement Are (HIA) completed approximately $4 million dollars in needed renovations with funds provided through the HIA designation program. Staff is working with two associations currently considering requesting HIA designation. Completed approximately $300,000 in capital improvements on the Public Housing units; the HA received a $218,000 grant from the state to use for public housing capital improvements. This is the HA’s second grant from the state. West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust (WHAHLT) purchased, rehabbed and sold their seventh affordable home in SLP. The city recently partnered with WHAHLT and GMHC on the acquisition of a tax forfeited home that is undergoing rehab; scheduled for sale in late spring. Successful submitted two HUD grant applications to fund the Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) program coordinator services for participants of the Section 8 Voucher and Public Housing programs. 27 individual rental assistant program participants received services to promote economic self-sufficiency. Successful submitted a HUD three year renewal grant application to fund a full-time on-site service coordinator position to assist residents at Hamilton House live independently. Utilization of the Move-Up-In-The-Park housing rehab programs and the green remodeling programs were strong despite the downturn in the economy and the housing market. 6th annual Home Remodeling Tour held; an average of 475 attendees visited each of the six homes on the tour. The 2010 Home Remodeling Fair had a “green” theme and over 2000 residents attended the fair. Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 7) Page 3 Subject: Housing Authority 2010 Annual Report & 2011 Work Plan FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable VISION CONSIDERATION: The activities of the Housing Authority have a direct relationship to the Strategic Direction the Council adopted related to “St Louis Park is committed to providing a well maintained and diverse housing stock”. Attachments: FYE December 31, 2011 HA Action Plan Prepared By: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor Reviewed By: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Housing Authority FYE December 31, 2011Action Plan Updated February 2011 HA Vision Elements The Community Action Items Status Comments a. Desirable housing choices exist for families and individuals of all incomes. a. Assist nonprofit and for profit developers working with the City on the acquisition, improvement and/or development of additional traditional and/or non-traditional housing opportunities to meet the City’s diverse housing needs and goals. b. Continue to administer the federally assisted rental assistance programs maximizing utilization, both budgetary and units under contract. Monitor the ongoing administration and utilization of Sec. 8 project-based developments; including the impact, that project basing has on the operation of the Section 8 voucher program. c. Continue to look for opportunities to facilitate and promote affordable and 1st time homebuyer home ownership. Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Staff met with Wayside House Inc and Cty to explore the possibility of submitting an application to HUD for the Family Unification Program; Cty decided to submit with Minneapolis. Staff coordinated effort to restructure the refinancing of Louisiana Court. Staff explored options with the developer to include affordable housing units in proposed West End apartment complex. As of December 31, the PH programs exceeded 98% occupancy for the year; the Section 8 tenant based program expended 100% of budget authority. Project based programs (Section 8 and S+C) are all at 100% with the exception of Wayside, which is at 95% utilization. No new vouchers have been issued in the tenant-based program since April 1, 2009. Due to tight HUD budgets, the HA is serving less voucher holders in order to stay within budgetary constraints. The HA ceased issuing tenant based vouchers to eligible project based voucher holders due to budget constraints; staff is meeting with Wayside to explore options for modifying the program. Staff continues to work with West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust (WHAHLT) to assist in acquisition and resale of homes to low income families using the land trust model. WHAHLT purchased and sold 1 home in 2010 and recently partnered with the City and GMHC to purchase a tax forfeited property that will undergo extensive rehab this spring. This will be the 8th home WHAHLT has purchased and sold in the City. WHAHLT utilized the City’s line-of-credit to purchase the last three homes. Still looking for a duplex to convert to homeownership. Eight homes have been purchased utilizing the Live Where You Work program. Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 7) Subject: Housing Authority 2010 Annual Report & 2011 Work PlanPage 4 d. Continue to encourage expansion, remodeling and maintenance of single-family homes through the development, application and marketing of rehab loan products, including the Move-Up-In-The-Park programs. e. Continue working with homeowner associations interested in utilizing HIA as a resource to meet the housing rehab needs of condominium and townhouse development. Explore interest of Hennepin County to issue bonds to finance HIA projects countywide. f. Consider applying for additional “Fair Share” Section 8 units, Shelter Plus Care or other assisted housing resources based on community need, community goals and staff capacity to administer additional units when available. Support other service and housing agencies efforts to secure additional affordable housing units. g. Explore opportunities to include a limited number of affordable housing units in newly constructed multi-family housing developments. Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing In progress Continued strong use of Move-Up housing programs despite downturn in the economy and the housing market. The number of major expansion did decrease in 2010. The Sunset Ridge HIA completed $ million dollars in rehab. The City has approved 5 HIAs to date and staff is currently working with two other townhome associations. Considered submission of an application for Family Unification Vouchers, but the County was already submitting an app with the Mpls. PHA and decided that they did not want to submit two apps at this time. Staff submitted three renewal apps for 26 Shelter Plus Care units with Perspectives Inc. and Community Involvement Program (2). An application for 50 Nonelderly Disabled Vouchers was submitted in response to a HUD NOFA on 7/7/10 but was not funded. The City created and is in the process of implementing the Louisiana Court Shallow Rent subsidy program. Meeting scheduled with Hennepin County re: Cty funding designated for a rent assistance program - the Cty is looking to partner with HAs. Staff worked with developer of the apartment complex being built in the West End Dev. and the Council to determine whether an affordability component could be incorporated. Reviewed and discussed City’s affordable housing policy on 7/12/10. There is a balance of housing choices for households at all phases of the life cycle. a. Continue to address housing strategies identified in Vision St. Louis Park, HA strategic planning and Housing Summit Goals, and initiatives in the 18 month Vision strategy adopted by the Council in addressing housing needs in the community. Ongoing Live Where You Work Program, Land Trust units and all the City’s rehab related programs, including the “green” programs support strategies identified in the Vision strategies. Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 7) Subject: Housing Authority 2010 Annual Report & 2011 Work PlanPage 5 b. Oversee process as the final Excess Public Land parcel home on Monterey is constructed. Continue to market unsold “excess” properties through local realtors. c. Maintain/distribute Housing Activities Report bi-annually and Matrix of existing housing types to confirm benchmarks and to evaluate future housing development. d. Work with Hennepin County and other counties to conduct a countywide senior housing market study, to determine future senior housing needs in the community. In progress Ongoing The HA Board approved the sale and development agreement for the excess land parcel at Louisiana Ave. in October 2010; home currently under construction. The Board extended the development agreement with the buyer of the Monterey property until December 31, 2011. A mid year report was distributed to the HA and Council in July and the final 2010 bi-annual housing report was updated, distributed and discussed with the Board at the February Board meeting.; the report was also distributed to the Council. Staff has had several discussions with Henn. Cty staff regarding a senior marketing study. The County has requested that we provide some proposed “survey” questions to gauge interests from other communities in participating in a survey; will renew follow-up with Cty in 2011. St. Louis Park is a unique, safe, pedestrian- and transit-oriented community. a. Incorporate livable communities’ principles into policies and planning including downtown center; pedestrian, bicycle and public transit oriented development; strong neighborhoods and developments located with access to employment opportunities. b. Continue to implement new “green” incentive remodeling programs for use of environmentally friendly design and products in home rehab/expansion/maintenance. Work with MN Green Star, CEE & MN Pollution Control Agency to create strategies to promote greater program use. In progress As part of the Park Nicollet Healthy Seniors Initiative, staff is participating in a joint transportation committee with the Family Services Collaborative to review the City’s current transportation resources and identify gaps. The City will consider funding a Dial a Ride program with Prism for 2011; funds were included in the 2011 budget for this initiative. Staff modified green program to utilize funds to enhance the Energy Saver Rebate Loans. 3 households utilized the Green Advisor services and 42 residents received rebates for installing energy efficient furnaces, hot water heaters and air conditioners. Agency Administration and Programs Action Items Status Comments The public housing stock is well-maintained and a positive community asset. a. Continue efforts to maintain the HA’s Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS) property inspection indicator score at a level that ensures we meet the highest PHAS property inspection standards. Feb. 2010 Our score for the 3/2010 physical inspection dropped from 29 to 26. This is lower than we have received the past few years. Although some difference can be attributed to a difference in inspectors, there were a few items that caused higher point deductions. Staff assessed deductions and made the needed corrections. Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 7) Subject: Housing Authority 2010 Annual Report & 2011 Work PlanPage 6 b. Implement improvements as noted in the public housing one-year capital fund improvement plan, utilizing the formula allocated Capital Improvement grant funds within HUD’s designated guidelines. Obligate and expend MHFA capital improvement funding and the additional Stimulus CFP funds. Continue to revise 5 year Plan to assist in planning for future Capital improvement needs. c. Developing a comprehensive PH property condition inventory that includes all capital and equipment improvements/replacements regardless of funding source. d. Seek opportunities to improve environmental design and energy efficiencies of our PH properties. Utilize energy saving and environmentally friendly equipment, appliances and building techniques Ongoing Capital improvements are being implemented based on a five-year comprehensive capital improvement plan. The HA completed over $300,000 in property improvements in 2010 utilizing HUD Capital Improvement Funds. The HA received a Public Housing Capital Improvement grant from MN Housing for $218,000. The funds are designated for improvements at Hamilton House. Replaced patio doors in Hamilton House units with energy efficient doors, replaced windows and siding on a number of scattered site public housing units and replaced air handler at Hamilton House. Energy Star rated appliances used for all replacements. The Housing Authority is financially solvent and strives for greater financial capacity. a. Maintain adequate accounting systems and internal control procedures to comply with HUD’s asset management and audit requirements; review and improve accounting processes and procedures as appropriate. b. Continue to assess maintenance operation and activities ensuring the most effective and efficient use of staff and resources. c. Develop budgets for agency programs that reflect prudent fiscal operation and are responsive to HUD’s federal funding policies. Review financial principles and policies related to HA reserve funds as appropriate. Sept. 2010 Ongoing July 2010 Results from the FYE March 31 2010 Audit were presented to the Board at the September HA meeting: the HA is financially sound with sound financial practices, no significant deficiencies or material weaknesses were identified. One finding related to the Broker’s Acknowledgement Certification forms was noted; this has been resolved. Staff meets weekly to discuss/monitor ongoing maintenance needs and projects. Staff performs annual inspections of properties and a comprehensive rehab plan is developed for all turnovers. Staff developed and submitted Housing Rehab and Community Development Block Grant budgets for the 2011 City budget approved in December. Federal funding and assisted housing program budgets were completed the first part of 2010. Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 7) Subject: Housing Authority 2010 Annual Report & 2011 Work PlanPage 7 d. Continue to apply for HUD grant opportunities to ensure a self-supported Training & Resources to Attain Long term Success (TRAILS) program and service coordinator at Hamilton House. e. Enhance financial monitoring of housing rehab programs; determine approach to ensure long-term viability and use of the Housing Rehab fund and the Park Center Tax Increment Finance (affordable housing related uses). Completed In progress Received two HUD renewal grants to continue funding the Family Self Sufficiency coordinator position for 2011. The program serves approximately 27PH and Sec. 8 program participants. The HA was recently notified that it was an awarded a three year renewal grant for the Hamilton House Service Coordinator program. Finance developing a more “user friendly” version of the monthly financial statement for monitoring housing rehab program activities and budgets. The administration of Housing Authority programs is efficient, effective and productive. a. Continually “Rethink” products, services and systems. Institute uniform policies across programs to improve management functions, reflective of Congressional changes, HUD rules and procedural practices. Complete comprehensive review of all City funded housing programs. b. Promote and encourage staff to participate in professional development opportunities, training and conference opportunities to increase staff knowledge, efficiency and effectiveness c. Continue to utilize and develop “monthly management reports” to track key program indicators needed to assess criteria for Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS), asset management, Section 8 Management Assessment Program (SEMAP) and operational performance. Ongoing Ongoing Staff implemented new Employee Income Verification (EIV) regulations requiring the reporting of terminations and outstanding balances owed to the HA in a national data base that can be accessed by all HAs when issuing new vouchers or housing applicants in PH. Staff attends both internal and external professional development trainings as well as participating in housing industry work groups. Staff attended both the spring and fall Spring MN NAHRO conference. Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 7) Subject: Housing Authority 2010 Annual Report & 2011 Work PlanPage 8 d. Maintain Public Housing Leasing and Occupancy Policy to reflect Congressional changes, HUD rules, HA policies and Family Resident Handbook. Update Public Housing Lease. e. Update and revise the Section 8 Voucher Program Administrative Policy to reflect Congressional changes, HUD rules and HA policies. f. Continue to operate the Section 8 and Public Housing programs in a manner that maintains HUD “high performer” status under SEMAP & PHAS. g. Maximize utilization of Sec. 8 program and occupancy of the PH program. h. Support the Louisiana Court management staff in administering the PH – Metropolitan Housing Opportunity Program (MHOP) units. In progress In progress The PH Leasing and Occupancy Policy has been updated. Staff is in the process of reviewing and updating the Sec 8 Admin Policy. The HA maintained High Performer status under SEMAP for the Section 8 program for FYE 2010. The PH program is assessed every other year and will be assessed at FYE 2011. The HA will utilize 100% of the Section 8 budget authority for calendar year 2010. Staff continues to participate in bi-monthly Oversight Committee meetings. Refinancing of the developed was accomplished in 2010. The refinancing included funding for rehab work to be completed in 2011. The Max 200 Louisiana Court Shallow Rent Subsidy Program will be implemented in 2011. The Housing Authority has a good professional image as a developer, property manager and policy maker in St. Louis Park. a. Continue to pursue community outreach opportunities such as the Neighborhood Assoc. meetings, Home Remodeling Fair & Remodeling Tour, Lenox Sr. Center, Twin West Chamber/Business Council etc. b. Ensure policy makers, City staff, industry partners and the public are kept informed of housing related activities and programs administered by the City through ongoing use of various media resources including, the Park Perspective, the City’s WEB page, cable, direct mailing, news articles, etc. The Home Remodeling Fair was held in February and attended by approximately 2000 residents and the Remodeling Tour continues to be well attended; 400 – 500 at every house. Staff has participated in the Healthy Senior Initiatives meetings sponsored by Park Nicollet. Staff met with City Council late summer to discuss affordable housing and the use of TIF housing funds; Housing Activity Report is distributed 2x per year. Articles on various housing programs and foreclosure counseling are been included in Park Perspective, Star Tribune, Sun Sailor and the City’s WEB. An article appeared in the Nat’l magazine, This Old House on the City’s Live Where You Work Program. A direct mailing piece on foreclosure to households with utility bill delinquencies. Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 7) Subject: Housing Authority 2010 Annual Report & 2011 Work PlanPage 9 c. Be responsive to inquires or complaints from policy makers, businesses, service agencies, landlords, participants and the public; continue to seek ways to improve customer service. Ongoing The Agency as Partner Action Items Status Comments The Housing Authority seeks opportunities to work in partnership with for-profit and nonprofit organizations to address housing needs in St. Louis Park a. Continue to participate in NAHRO activities and work with Hennepin County, MHFA, MN Pollution Control Agency (PCA), Center for Energy & Environment (CEE) and other housing related organizations to promote and support housing initiatives benefiting St. Louis Park residents. b. Work with the League of MN Cities to develop “Green Step Cities” program and participate on the E-group, the City’s internal environmental group that supports being good stewards of the environment. c. Seek opportunities to collaborate with nonprofit and for profit developers to address housing needs in the community, both homeownership and rental, including expanding home improvement programming, resources and financing options. d. Provide staff liaison to work with Louisiana Court (LC) funding partners, participate in the Oversight Committee to monitor project’s ongoing operational and financial status and possible debt restructuring scheduled proposed for early 2011. e. Continue to seek ways to effectively utilize Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds with non-profit organizations serving low-income households. Ongoing: staff will renew efforts with the County on the possibility of a county wide Senior Marketing Study, the Cty, MHFA, Family Housing Fund collaborated on the Louisiana Court refinancing. Kathy Larsen co-chaired the City’s E-group. The City has been accepted as one of five communities to participate in the Green Step Cities Initiative through collaboration between the League of MN Cities, MPCA and Urban Land Institute. The program is still in the early dev. stages, first meeting scheduled for December. The City is working with many non-profits, West Henn. Affordable Housing Land Trust, PPL, Wayside, Vail Place, Comm. Involvement Program, Perspectives, CEE Staff continues to oversee the 12 Public Housing units at LC and participates on the Oversight Comm. that meets every other month to review the operation of the dev. Staff is working with PPL on the several CDBG funded improvements and collaborated on the financial restructuring of the dev. CDBG funds have been utilized to support ongoing home rehab programs as well as acquisition of the STEP building and park and rec programming. A direct allocation of CDBG funds to PPL was utilized to replace water/sewer pipes at Louisiana Court. Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 7) Subject: Housing Authority 2010 Annual Report & 2011 Work PlanPage 10 The Housing Authority has a strong relationship with City Council, City staff and citizens of St. Louis Park. a. Continue to collaborate with the Police Department to support the St. Louis Park Rental Coalition (SPARC) and serve as Community Development staff liaison to the Coalition. b. Conduct neighborhood workshops on housing rehab resources and programs. Work with neighborhoods to address housing related issues. Through analysis of housing rehab activity, determine need to target under represented neighborhoods. c. Provide staff representation on the Intra-City Community Connections Committee to build collaboration and awareness of City’s department activities with residents. d. Continue to identify and enhance current marketing activities to promote the City housing-related programs to the residents including continued and ongoing enhancement of information on the City’s WEB. e. Maintain comprehensive housing report on various housing activities/programs in the City, include housing matrix and information on rental assistance program, distribute to policy makers semi-annually. f. Keep City Council and Board informed of information on housing initiatives, identified needs, housing programs and current projects. g. Participate in City Foreclosure workgroup to ensure City stays ahead of potential foreclosure related issues. Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Staff continues to collaborate with the police department in facilitating SPARC. Recent meeting topics included a legislative update and City development update. A City sponsored picnic was also held this past summer. SPARC meets every other month to discuss pertinent topics. Two workshops were held to discuss green remodeling and design and requirements to obtain a “MN green certified” rehab project. . Kathy Larsen represents the Housing work unit on the committee sharing information on housing related activities; Kathy keeps housing staff informed of other news and initiatives occurring in other departments and work units. Staff is always working on ways to get the message out about our programs – we try to keep the information in front of the public and provide news articles often. Info is also available on the City’s web site. The 2010 Calendar Year Housing Report was distributed to the Council, Planning Comm. and Housing Authority Board in Feb. 2011; the mid year report will be prepared for distribution in July. Bi-annual Housing Activity Report, Affordable Housing Council Report Staff continues to participate in the citywide workgroup. The group includes staff representation from various departments – the purpose is to share information and to be proactive in addressing problems related to foreclosed properties. Procedures have been developed to identify and monitor vacant foreclosed properties. The group meets monthly. Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 7) Subject: Housing Authority 2010 Annual Report & 2011 Work PlanPage 11 Our Residents Action Items Status Comments Current and past residents of subsidized housing have improved their economic status and are less dependent on public assistance. a. Continue to administer the Trails Family Self-Sufficiency program, annually seek HUD funds to support the FSS coordinator position, which services Sec. 8 and Public Housing clients. b. Explore opportunities to cultivate relationships with community supportive services organi-zations for greater economic programming and support service opportunities for HA clients. Ongoing Ongoing We are in our 16th year of administering the Family Self Sufficiency Progam serving up to 30 program participants at a time. We were notified that we were awarded both Sec. 8 and Ph grants to renew funding for 2011. Staff is participating in the Park Nicollet Healthy Communities Initiative serving on the transportation committee. The Initiative explores ways to keep SLP’s seniors healthy and independent as they age. Staff is working with Prism on developing a dial-a-ride program for St. Louis Park. Residents unable to achieve economic independence because of age, disability or circumstance have improved their quality of life and are contributing members of the community. a. Through referral and advocacy, help tenants to strengthen their relationships with local support service organizations and sustain their ability to live independently. b. Continue to collaborate with Vail Place to provide social service coordination & case management at Hamilton House (HH); work cooperatively with all organizations providing support services to HH residents. c. Continue to collaborate with supportive housing agencies to seek and administer rental assistance; i.e., Project Based Vouchers, Shelter Plus Care. Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Trails Program & Vail Place Program continue to provide supportive services for residents addressing economic self-sufficiency and independent living skills. Staff also works one-on-one with case managers and other support staff for a number of residents. HUD recently notified the HA that we were awarded a 3 year renewal grant supporting the Vail Place social service coordination and case management services at Hamilton House. HA and Vail Place recently collaborated on a grant renewal submission to HUD. Collaborating with Wayside and the County, staff recently explored the possibility of submitting an application to administer a Section 8 Family Unification Program. After consulting with the County, Cty decided to submit only one application at this time with MPHA. Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 7) Subject: Housing Authority 2010 Annual Report & 2011 Work PlanPage 12 Meeting Date: February 28, 2011 Agenda Item #: 8 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Planning Commission 2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work Plan. RECOMMENDED ACTION: This report summarizes work performed by the Planning Commission in 2010 and outlines the intentions of Planning Commission work to be completed in 2011. The Planning Commission and planning staff request feedback and guidance from Council regarding the reports. POLICY CONSIDERATION: • Are the actions of the Planning Commission in alignment with the expectations of the City Council? • Does the City Council wish to meet with the Planning Commission to discuss their annual report and work plan? BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission advises the City Council in matters concerning comprehensive planning, zoning, platting, street changes, and general planning and development. This Commission may also hold public hearings on certain issues. The commission consists of seven regular members and one non-voting youth member. Meetings are held the first and third Wednesday of each month at 6:00 p.m. Planning Commission meetings are shown live on Civic Cable TV Channel 17. Meetings are also replayed on Wednesdays - 8:00 a.m., 2:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. and Fridays - 8:00 a.m., 2:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. In accordance with Council policy, the 2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work Plan are attached in full for City Council review. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: The 2011 Planning Commission Work Plan primarily addresses all of the Strategic Directions: being a connected and engaged community; being a leader in environmental stewardship; providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock; and promoting and integrating arts, culture and community aesthetics in all city initiatives. Attachments: Planning Commission 2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work Plan Planning Commission Bylaws Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 8) Page 2 Subject: Planning Commission 2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work Plan St. Louis Park Planning Commission 2010 Annual Report Prepared by the City of St. Louis Park Community Development Department Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 8) Page 3 Subject: Planning Commission 2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work Plan 2010 St. Louis Park Planning Commission Richard Person, Chair Dennis Morris, Vice-Chair Lynne Carper Claudia Johnston-Madison Robert Kramer Carl Robertson Larry Shapiro, School Board Representative Andrew Ford, Youth Member St. Louis Park Planning Staff Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Sean Walther, Senior Planner Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Adam Fulton, Planner Nancy Sells, Administrative Secretary Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 8) Page 4 Subject: Planning Commission 2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work Plan Summary of Applications In 2010, the Planning Commission held public hearings on numerous applications. The cases are listed by type, and the projects are described in the paragraphs to follow. Applications Processed 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 4 1 1 2 0 Conditional Use Permits/ Special Permit Amendments 14 8 9 5 8 Planned Unit Developments 3 5 5 4 4 Re-zonings 2 2 2 2 0 Subdivisions/Plats 11 7 5 1 6 Variance 7 1 5 2 3 Zoning Code Amendments 3 3 5 0 4 Major Development and Redevelopment Projects that came before the Planning Commission in 2010 are briefly summarized below: Marriott Hotel – Final Plat, Final PUD and Vacation 600 Highway 169 A new 162-room, 7-story hotel within the Metropointe office complex, located in the northwest corner of Highways 169 and 394. The hotel will include a first floor lobby with a restaurant that will primarily serve hotel guests, and several conference rooms to accommodate business meetings and other small events. Action taken: Recommended approval. Result of Planning Commission recommendation: Council approved the application. As of the date of this report, construction of the project has not begun. Panera Bread,– PUD Amendment 5600 Cedar Lake Rd A building permit was issued in 2009 to construct a 4,000 square foot Panera restaurant to the west side of the shopping center containing PetSmart and Office Max. In this PUD amendment application, Panera asked for a Major Amendment to the Park Place Plaza PUD to allow signage on the west side of the Panera building. Action taken: Recommended approval. Result of Planning Commission recommendation: Council approved the application. The new signage was installed as approved. Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 8) Page 5 Subject: Planning Commission 2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work Plan Dental Office Final Plat – Final Plat 3345 Dakota Ave S. A combined preliminary and final plat to remove approximately 1,600 square feet of land from an adjacent parcel owned by Canadian Pacific railroad and combine it with the applicant’s property. The request did not result in the creation of a new lot. Action taken: Recommended approval. Result of Planning Commission recommendation: Council approved the application. As of the date of this report, the plat has not been recorded. Galaxy Drive-In Conditional Use Permit, Plat, and Variance 3712 Quebec Ave S 3715 Rhode Island Ave S. A Conditional Use Permit for the Galaxy Drive-In restaurant, a Preliminary and Final Plat with a Subdivision Variance to combine two lots into one, and a Variance to parking lot setbacks. The request is to remove one single family home, combine the restaurant and vacant residential properties into one, build a new parking lot, and implement new on-street parking regulations. Action taken: Recommended approval of the CUP and Plat. Recommended denial of the subdivision variance to not require a sidewalk. Recommended denial of the variance to the parking lot setback. Recommended the City Council consider parking restrictions on the frontage road. Result of Planning Commission recommendation: Council approved the CUP, Plat, variance to not allow the sidewalk, and parking restrictions. Beth El Synagogue – Conditional Use Permit 5224 West 26th Street The CUP is for renovations and an addition at Beth El Synagogue. The proposal includes interior modifications to improve accessibility, a new entry area to improve access and security for students, and a new library & education center. Action taken: Recommended approval. Result of Planning Commission recommendation: Council approved the application. As of the date of this report, the project is nearly completed. Birchwood Park - Conditional Use Permit for Excavation 2701 Zarthan Avenue South A CUP for excavation for the redevelopment of Birchwood Park. The City’s long range plans for parks includes improvements at Birchwood Park, including a new park shelter / warming building, parking lot, and basketball court. Action taken: Recommended approval. Result of Planning Commission recommendation: Council approved the application. The park improvements have been constructed. Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 8) Page 6 Subject: Planning Commission 2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work Plan U-Haul Rental Facility - Special Permit Amendment 8951 36th St. West Requested is a Major Amendment to the existing Special Permit to allow for the rental of U-Haul trucks, trailers and equipment, and the outside storage of U-Haul trucks and trailers. The proposal includes a designated area within the parking lot for the storage and display of U-Haul trucks and trailers and a designated space within the building for office, storage and retail uses related to the rental of U-Haul equipment. Action taken: Recommended approval. Result of Planning Commission recommendation: Council denied the application. Applicant appealed staff’s interpretation of the ordinance that a CUP was required. The Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) heard the appeal, and upheld staff’s interpretation. The U-Haul business ceased operating. Sam’s Club Gas Station – CUP for Excavation 3745 Louisiana Avenue South A CUP for excavation at the fueling station at Sam’s Club. The fueling station was constructed in 2007, but modifications were required because of differential settling between the parking lot and the fueling station. The soil was removed and replaced by clean fill during the project. When complete, the site and building design at the fueling station will mirror its initial construction in 2007. Action taken: Recommended approval. Result of Planning Commission recommendation: Council approved the application. The project has been completed. Conditional Use Permit for In-Vehicle Service – Dairy Queen 5001 Excelsior Blvd A CUP to allow in-vehicle (drive-through) sales/service at 5001 Excelsior Boulevard. The in- vehicle sales/service would be offered by Dairy Queen, the existing restaurant on the site. Action taken: Recommended denial. Result of Planning Commission recommendation: The applicant withdrew the application. Ellipse on Excelsior -Major amendment to PUD 3900 Excelsior Blvd The applicant’s request is to reduce the parking requirement in order to accommodate potential tenants for the commercial space. The request includes increasing the area used for restaurant from 3,000 square feet to 5,050 square feet, and to use up to 7,140 square feet of the building for a medical clinic. Action taken: Recommended approval. Result of Planning Commission recommendation: Council approved the amendment. The Council also approved no parking restrictions on France Ave between Excelsior Blvd and 34th Street, and authorized permit parking only on 34th Street and France Ave S. Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 8) Page 7 Subject: Planning Commission 2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work Plan The West End - Major Amendment to PUD & Variance 5310 16th Street West The PUD amendment and shading variance would allow a 6-story, 120-unit apartment building. The West End PUD previously anticipated a hotel with up to 150 rooms on this site. Action taken: Recommended approval. Result of Planning Commission recommendation: Council approved the amendment and variance. Staff is currently working with the developer on building code related questions. A building permit is expected in the spring of 2011, ground breaking is expected in July, 2011. Eldridge 1st Addition - Preliminary Plat 8849 Minnetonka Boulevard A Preliminary Plat to allow for the subdivision of a lot with one house at 8849 Minnetonka Boulevard into five (5) new lots. The lots would be serviced by a new public street, “Cobblecrest Court,” which would be a cul-de-sac going south from Minnetonka Boulevard on the east side of the site. Action taken: Recommended approval. Result of Planning Commission recommendation: Council approved the preliminary plat. Namakan Properties Registered Land Survey (RLS) 8225 State Highway 7 The RLS is proposed to divide property owned by MnDOT into two parcels. One parcel involving approximately 11,000 square feet would be combined with the property located at 8225 State Highway 7. The property is improved with a small retail building that is currently occupied with Carpet King and The Little Gym. The other property would remain in MnDOT ownership. Action taken: Recommended approval. Result of Planning Commission recommendation: Council approved the RLS. Fire Station #1 - CUP for Fill, Plat with Subdivision Variance Fire Station #2 & Northside Park - Conditional Use Permit for Fill 3750 Wooddale Ave. South 2262 Louisiana Ave. South Both fire station sites will be re-graded. The total volume of grading at each site exceeds 400 cubic yards, requiring a Conditional Use Permit for fill. Platting the property at Fire Station #1 will combine the existing site with three adjacent properties purchased for the fire station expansion. A street vacation is also required to allow for the construction of a public parking lot to the north of Fire Station #1. Action taken: Recommended approval. Result of Planning Commission recommendation: Council approved the CUPs and plat with variance. Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 8) Page 8 Subject: Planning Commission 2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work Plan ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS Zoning Ordinance amendments that were reviewed by the Planning Commission in 2010 are summarized below: Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS) – Zoning Ordinance Amendment The purpose of the amendment is to define WECS, identify the manner in which they are permitted, where they are permitted and to establish performance and design standards. Action taken: Recommended approval. Result of Planning Commission recommendation: Council approved the Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Electronic Signs – Zoning Ordinance Amendment The purpose of the amendment is to establish performance standards for electronic signage and to correct errors in the code relating to references to bufferyards, which are no longer required. Action taken: Recommended approval. Result of Planning Commission recommendation: Council approved the Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Election Signs - Zoning Ordinance Amendment The purpose of the amendment is to comply with state law passed earlier this year that establishes specific dates when political signs may be displayed. Action taken: Recommended approval. Result of Planning Commission recommendation: Council approved the amendment. Multiple-Family Residential in Office District - Zoning Ordinance Amendment The purpose of the amendment is to remove the density restrictions in the Office zone, when approved specifically by the city through a Planned Unit Development; and to allow a building to be only residential in use versus requiring different uses on the first and second floors. Action taken: Recommended approval. Result of Planning Commission recommendation: Council approved the amendment. Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 8) Page 9 Subject: Planning Commission 2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work Plan Eliot School Site Design Guidelines The City and School District agreed to work with the neighbors around Eliot School to create a set of development guidelines for the future redevelopment on the site. The process began in May, with a neighborhood meeting. Several neighbors volunteered to be a part of a task force to develop the guidelines. The Task Force was established with 20 members, including 15 residents, the Ward 4 City Council member, a Planning Commissioner, a Parks & Recreation Commissioner, and two School District representatives. Hoisington-Koegler Group Inc. (HKGi) was retained to facilitate the process and develop the draft guidelines. The Task Force met three times from June to August 2010, and agreed on guidelines. The group represented a variety of perspectives and the meetings included lively discussion and good ideas. Members were respectful of different goals of the individuals and groups involved. Common principles were drawn out of the discussions. The process culminated with an overall neighborhood meeting on October 14, 2010. Neighbors were informed of the work and indicated they would like to be involved in every future step towards redevelopment. The City Council and School Board reviewed the guidelines, which will be incorporated into the Eliot neighborhood section of the Comprehensive Plan. Action taken: Will be incorporated into the Eliot Plan by Neighborhood section of the Comprehensive Plan, expected to be considered in Spring of 2011.. STUDY SESSION DISCUSSION ITEMS In addition to the action items listed above, the Planning Commission also discussed the following items: Green Step Cities Demonstration Project Green Building Policy Presentation on Commercial Corridor Study Overview on the Supreme Court Decision on Variance. Discussion on Business Park Zoning District Cluster Housing Eliot School Design Guidelines Review of Hardcoat TIF Plan for Comprehensive Plan Conformance Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 8) Page 10 Subject: Planning Commission 2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work Plan St. Louis Park Planning Commission 2011 Work Plan 1. Review Planning Applications – Hear applications for Conditional Use Permits (CUPs), Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Rezonings, Preliminary Plats and variances. Hold public hearings, discuss planning impacts, and make recommendations to the City Council. Potential and Continuing Applications: Park Summit major amendment for apartments Final Plat for 8849 Minnetonka Blvd Reuse of old Luther Westside building Business Park District Gateway Development (Kentucky/Wayzata) Non-conforming ordinance amendment Ellipse II (motel site) Eliot School redevelopment 2. 2030 Comprehensive Plan – Complete Plan by Neighborhood Section by spring 2011. Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. is completing the 35 individual neighborhood plans. These will incorporate information from the Comprehensive Plan and the public input process from 2009. In 2011, plans will be shared with neighbors and adopted into the overall Comprehensive Plan. 3. Updates to the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance – Continue work to update the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, including nonconformities, Business Park Zoning District, Planned Unit Development structure and provisions and the overall organization of the ordinance. 4. Special Studies A. Southwest LRT Station Area Planning Southwest LRT planning is significantly further along in 2011, with a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) chosen and the Metropolitan Council now in charge of the project. Preliminary Engineering (PE) is the next formal step in the process, and more specific attention to station areas is now needed. Hennepin County has designated the corridor as a County “Community Works” project. Within this organizational structure, a number of planning studies will be undertaken in 2011 with the communities along the LRT line and Community Works. Initial studies are expected to surround the areas of economic development and parking/circulation. The Metropolitan Council has also received two major grants for transit planning that will enable the communities to undertake more specific station area planning. Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 8) Page 11 Subject: Planning Commission 2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work Plan In addition, the City has received a “pre-planning” Livable Communities Demonstration Grant (LCDA) for the Beltline Station area to work on stormwater and design guideline planning. The design guidelines will include a public input process. These studies are expected to get underway in late spring, and will include Planning Commission input and involvement. B. Lake Street area - Louisiana to Wooddale Avenue As prioritized by the City Council, the Lake-Walker area near the high school is the first of the “commercial nodes and corridors” studies. The study is to look at the market conditions, circulation, infrastructure, buildings, the mix of uses, and connectivity and image. This will help to plan for the appropriate type and amount of commercial development and to determine what the city can do to help the private market succeed. Several pieces of this study were completed in 2010 including background research and the Commercial Corridor market study. This year, Graduate Students of the Humphrey Institute at the University of Minnesota, will be studying the area and providing information and recommendations for the city. They will focus on improving connections from the study area to the proposed Wooddale light rail station; collecting data regarding properties, land uses, wayfinding and general identity of the study area; analyzing existing conditions; and producing recommendations as to how to proceed with the next steps. The Capstone project will be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council in late spring. C. Freight Relocation Study by Hennepin County Hennepin County is in the process of studying relocation options for the TC&W route from the east-west CP line to the north-south CP MNS line through the northern part of St. Louis Park. If traffic is moved to the MNS line, some of the tracks and bridges will likely have to be rebuilt and/or reconfigured. The city is engaged in a study with Hennepin County and MnDOT and the Planning Commission has been involved through the Project Management Team (PMT); it is expected the Commission will continue to be involved as it moves forward. Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 8) Page 12 Subject: Planning Commission 2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work Plan Planning Commission Adopted August 6, 1969 City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota Revised June 19, 1989 Revised November 18, 1992 Revised February 21, 2001 Revised May 18, 2005 Revised January 3, 2007 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS Article I -– The Commission Section 1. The name of the Commission shall be the “Planning Commission”. Section 2. The planning commission shall have the following powers and duties to: (1) Prepare a comprehensive plan for the future development of the city to be submitted to the city council for implementation and to maintain such plan and recommend its amendment to the city council as may become necessary. (2) Initiate, direct and review, from time to time, a study of the provisions of the zoning chapter and the subdivision regulations and to report to the city council its advice and recommendations accordingly. (3) Study applications and proposals for amendments to the zoning chapter and applications for special permits and to advise the city council of its recommendations. (4) Study preliminary and final plats and to advise the city council of its recommendations. (5) Submit to the city council by April 1 of each year an annual report of the activities of the commission during the previous year. (6) Submit an annual work plan to the city council that details activities and projected timelines for the calendar year. The Community Development Department will develop the work plan for approval by the commission. (7) Act in an advisory capacity to the city council in all matters wherein powers are assigned to the city council by state law or city Charter concerning land use, comprehensive planning, zoning, platting, changes in streets and other matters of a general planning nature. Article II - Officers and Their Duties Section 1. At its first meeting of each calendar year, the Commission shall elect from its membership a Chair and a Vice-chair. The Chair position shall rotate annually. The staff liaison shall be the Secretary of the Commission. Section 2. The Chair and Vice-chair shall take office immediately following their election and shall hold office for a term of one year and until their successors are elected and assume office. Section 3. The Chair shall preside at all meetings, appoint committees, and perform such other duties as may be ordered by the Commission Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 8) Page 13 Subject: Planning Commission 2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work Plan Section 4. The Vice-chair shall act in the capacity of the Chair in the absence of the Chair. In the event the office of the Chair becomes vacant, the Vice-chair shall become Chair, and the Commission shall elect a successor to the office of Vice-chair for the unexpired term. Section 5. A staff liaison to the Planning Commission shall be designated by the city manager and shall be subject to the administrative rules and regulations of the city. The staff liaison may facilitate or assist in the meetings and shall be responsible for recording attendance of commission members. The staff liaison is responsible for keeping the city manager informed regarding the business of the commission and shall communicate to the city manager any problems or issues that may arise. The staff liaison shall also be responsible for assisting the commission in considering their financial needs and, if deemed necessary by the commission, shall request appropriate funding from the city council through the annual budget process. Article III-Election of Officers Section 1. Nomination of officers shall be made by the members of the Commission present at the annual organization meeting and the elections shall follow immediately thereafter. Section 2. A candidate receiving the vote of a majority of the entire membership of the Commission shall be declared elected. Section 3. Vacancies in offices shall be filled by regular election procedures for the unexpired term. Article IV -Meetings Section 1. All regular and special meetings, records, and accounts shall be open to the public and conducted in accordance with the Minnesota Open Meeting Law. Section 2. The annual organization meeting of the commission shall be the first regular meeting of the year at which time elections will be held and the schedule for the following year’s regular meeting schedule will be considered. Section 3. The Commission shall hold regular meetings on the first and third Wednesday of each month at 6:00 p.m., provided however, that when the day fixed for any regular meeting of the Commission falls upon any of the following holidays: Ash Wednesday, Chanukah, Christmas, Veterans Day, Independence Day, New Year's Day, Passover (first two nights), Rosh Hashanah, and Yom Kippur, such meeting shall be held at the same hour on the next succeeding Wednesday not a holiday. (For Chanukah, Christmas, Passover, Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, the holiday includes the evening before the holiday.) All regular meetings of the Commission shall be held in the City Hall of the City or other public building as noticed. The commission may, by a majority vote, change the regular meeting dates for any reason provided proper public notice of the changed meeting is provided to the public. Section 4. The Chair or any two members of the Commission may call a special meeting of the Commission after having given notice not less than three days in advance of such meeting to each member of the Commission. Such notice shall provide the date, time, place and purpose of meeting and be delivered personally to each member or be left at the member's usual place of residence with a person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or written notice thereof shall be left in a conspicuous place at the residence if no such person be found there. If however, all commissioners attend and participate in the meeting, these notice requirements are Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 8) Page 14 Subject: Planning Commission 2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work Plan not necessary. The presence of any commissioner at a special meeting shall constitute a waiver of any formal notice unless the commissioner appears for the special purpose of objecting to the holding of such meeting. Notice of the date, time, place and purpose of a special meeting must also be posted by the secretary on the principal bulletin board of the city at least three days prior to the date of the meeting. Section 5. A quorum shall consist of a simple majority of the members eligible to vote on matters before the Commission. Without a quorum, the meeting cannot be opened, and Planning Commission business or voting cannot be conducted. Passage of any matter before the Commission shall require the presence of a quorum and the affirmative vote of a majority of the quorum. Section 6. Voting on regular motions shall be by voice and will be recorded by yeas and nays unless a roll call is requested by a member of the Commission. Section 7. In all points not covered by these rules, the Commission shall be governed on its procedure by Sturgis Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure. Section 8. All meeting minutes, records and accounts shall be in writing kept in accordance with MN Statute and Rules regarding preservation of public records and the MN Data Privacy Act. Section 9. No member of the Commission shall discuss or vote on any question in which the member has a direct or indirect financial interest. Section 10. Commissioners should only communicate on issues pending or before the Commission during scheduled Commission meetings. If a Commissioner wishes to transmit information regarding the business of the Commission, the Commissioner should present it to the Staff liaison or other Community Development Department staff for distribution to the Commissioners. Section 11. Any Commissioner that is unable to attend a scheduled meeting of the Commission may submit written comments pertaining to an item on the agenda to the Community Development Director or the Secretary of the Commission for distribution to the Commissioners prior to the meeting or at the meeting and may request that such comments be attached as an addendum to the minutes of the meeting. Article V - Order of Business Section 1. The order of business shall be as follows: 1. Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes 3. Hearings 4. Unfinished Business 5. New Business a. Consent Items b. Other New Business 6. Communications 7. Miscellaneous 8. Adjournment Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 8) Page 15 Subject: Planning Commission 2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work Plan Section 2. Unless objection is made by motion of the Commission, the Presiding Officer may modify the foregoing order of business in order to accommodate citizens present or to expedite the business of the Commission. Section 3. Unless a reading of the Commission meeting minutes is requested by a member of the Commission, such minutes may be approved without reading if the secretary has previously furnished each member with a copy thereof. Section 4. Unless there is objection from the Commission, Staff or anyone in attendance at the meeting, Consent Items may be acted upon without discussion. Section 5. The case before the Commission shall be presented in summary by Planning staff or a designated member of the Commission and parties in interest shall have privilege of the floor thereafter. In those instances where the matter is considered non-controversial and does not warrant a summary, the Presiding Officer may entertain a motion without presentation of the summary, unless an objection is expressed by anyone present. Section 6. The Commission may postpone any case or continue any case for further study and information until the next regular meeting unless otherwise designated. Section 7. Any person desiring to address the Commission shall first secure the permission of the Presiding Officer to do so. Section 8. Each person addressing the Commission, shall, if requested by the Presiding Officer, step up in front of the rail, shall give his/her name and address in an audible tone for the records, and unless further time is granted by the Presiding Officer, shall limit his/her remarks to five minutes. All remarks should be addressed to the Commission as a body and not to any member thereof. No person, other than the Commission and the person having the floor, shall be permitted to enter into any discussion, either directly or through a member of the Commission, without the permission of the Presiding Officer. No question shall be asked a Commission member except through the Presiding Officer. Section 9. No person, except City Officials and their representatives, shall be permitted on the elevated portions of the Council Chambers without the express consent of the Commission. Article VI - Hearings Section 1. In addition to those required by law, the Commission may, at its discretion, hold public hearings when it declares such hearings will be in the public interest. Section 2. In the event of a public hearing, notice of such hearing shall be published in the official newspaper of the municipality not less than ten days before the time of the hearing. Article VII - Attendance and Performance of Duties Section 1. Regular attendance at meetings is a requirement for continued membership. Commission members are expected to attend regular and special commission meetings and assigned committee meetings. Planned absences communicated to the commission chair or committee task force chair in advance of the meeting will be deemed excused. Any other absence will be deemed unexcused. The commission will approve and record the approval of all excused and unexcused absences. Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 8) Page 16 Subject: Planning Commission 2010 Annual Report and 2011 Work Plan Section 2. Council will be informed if a member receives three unexcused absences in any calendar year, if a member attends scheduled meetings irregularly or if a member is frequently absent from scheduled meetings. Section 3. Commissioners are expected to adequately prepare for meetings. Commissioners unable to complete an assigned task should notify the commission chair or task force chair as soon as possible. The commission may ask the Council to review a member's appointment based upon its assessment of significant non-performance of duties. Article VIII - By-laws and Rules Section 1. These by-laws are subject to the City Council’s Rules and Procedures for Boards and Commissions, amended by Resolution 06-148 on September 18, 2006 and Chapter 2, Administration, the St. Louis Park City Code. Section 2. Written notice of proposed changes to the Planning Commission by-laws shall be provided to Commissioners thirty days prior to formal action by the Commission. These rules may be amended at any regular or special meeting by an affirmative vote of a majority of the entire membership. The City Council has thirty days to take action to modify the by-laws or amendments approved by the Commission. Meeting Date: February 28, 2011 Agenda Item #: 9 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Not Applicable. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable. BACKGROUND: At every Study Session, verbal communications will take place between staff and Council for the purpose of information sharing. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable. Attachments: None Prepared and Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting Date: February 28, 2011 Agenda Item #: 10 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: January 2011 Monthly Financial Report. RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. BACKGROUND: This report is designed to provide summary information regarding the overall level of revenues and expenditures in both the General Fund and the Park and Recreation Fund. These funds should be a primary concern in analyzing the City’s financial health because they represent the discretionary use of tax levy dollars. Actual expenditures should generally run about 8.3% of the annual budget in January. Currently, the General Fund has expenditures totaling 7.5% of the adopted budget and the Park and Recreation Fund expenditures are at 7.3%. Revenues tend to be harder to gauge in this same way due to the timing of when they are received, examples of which include property taxes and State aid payments (Police & Fire, DOT/Highway, PERA Aid, etc). Significant variances for both revenues and expenditures are highlighted below accompanied with a general discussion of reasons for the variance. General Fund Revenues: • In January, 32% of the license and permit revenues have been received in the General Fund. This is consistent with prior years in that most 2011 liquor and business license payments have already been received. In the Administration Department, nearly 87% or $192,000 of the budgeted liquor license revenues were received in the month of January. In the Inspections Department, 85% of the business license revenues for the year have been recorded, with most of the payments coming in late 2010 and deferred to 2011 to accurately reflect the year that the license revenue is earned. Permit revenues are at 7.3% through January. Expenditures: • Services & Other Charges in the Administration Department are running slightly high at 10.5% because the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities 2011 membership renewal in the amount of $11,600 was due in January. • Under the Police Department, both Supplies (11%) and Non-Capital Equipment (14%) are higher than budget. This is due to large payments that were made in January for operational supplies and equipment, and these two areas are only temporarily exceeding budget. Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 10) Page 2 Subject: January 2011 Monthly Financial Report • Public Works Operations has spent 15% of the Supplies budget through January, which reflects $65,000 for road salt. • Personal Services expenditures appear to slightly exceed budget in a few General Fund departments. These departments, such as Community Development, Finance, and Administration have portions of staff time that will be allocated to the EDA. This allocation will be reflected at the end of the quarter. Parks and Recreation Revenues: • Certain Park & Recreation revenues currently appear to exceed budget, however audit entries will be made in order to recognize revenue in the proper period. While the funds were received in 2011, any revenue actually earned in the prior year will need to be booked back to 2010. After these adjustments, the revenues will be back in line with budget and consistent with prior year. Expenditures: • The Organized Recreation budget for Supplies is at 27% of budget. A purchase was made in January of $9,900 for youth recreational equipment components, which will be installed later in the year to replace or repair existing play structures. • Under Vehicle Maintenance, both Supplies (10.3%) and Services & Other Charges (11.5%) are exceeding budget. The extreme winter weather has caused an increase in equipment repairs. Staff will continue to monitor fuel expense and repair parts and services closely throughout the remainder of the winter season. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time. VISION CONSIDERATION: Regular and timely reporting of financial information is part of the City’s mission of being stewards of financial resources. Attachments: Monthly Financial Reports Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant Reviewed by: Brian Swanson, Controller Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager 2/23/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:17:50R5509FIN1 LOGIS001 1Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object 2011 20111/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 01000 GENERAL FUND 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 15,426,072.00-15,426,072.00-|14,889,605.00- 4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 2,345,910.00- 750,475.33- 750,475.33- 1,595,434.67- 31.99 |2,294,768.00-680,717.28- 29.66 4270 FINES & FORFEITS 328,200.00- 24,504.05- 24,504.05- 303,695.95-7.47 |311,750.00-114.43- .04 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 1,136,187.00-1,136,187.00-|1,598,787.00-39,426.11- 2.47 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,152,643.00-8,106.20- 8,106.20- 1,144,536.80-.70 |1,138,018.00-64,237.86- 5.64 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 100,150.00- 18,023.70- 18,023.70- 82,126.30- 18.00 |100,000.00-19,379.61- 19.38 4001 REVENUES 20,489,162.00-801,109.28-801,109.28-19,688,052.72-3.91 |20,332,928.00-803,875.29-3.95 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 18,397,016.00 1,463,289.30 1,463,289.30 16,933,726.70 7.95 |18,132,004.00 1,515,589.08 8.36 6210 SUPPLIES 768,410.00 83,077.75 83,077.75 685,332.25 10.81 |846,535.00 102,147.31 12.07 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 63,425.00 5,032.03 5,032.03 58,392.97 7.93 |67,775.00 5,583.44 8.24 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 3,851,437.00 187,111.36 187,111.36 3,664,325.64 4.86 |3,922,858.00 160,214.26 4.08 6001 EXPENDITURES 23,080,288.00 1,738,510.44 1,738,510.44 21,341,777.56 7.53 |22,969,172.00 1,783,534.09 7.76 8001 OTHER INCOME 8010 TRANSFERS IN 2,589,876.00- 212,573.00- 212,573.00- 2,377,303.00-8.21 |2,583,825.00-215,318.74- 8.33 8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 4,000.00-66.59-66.59-3,933.41-1.66 |1,500.00-199.00- 13.27 8100 INTEREST 200,000.00-200,000.00-|200,000.00-61,747.43 30.87- 8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 750.00-175.00-175.00-575.00- 23.33 |100.00- 8200 MISC RECEIPTS |100.00- 8001 OTHER INCOME 2,794,626.00-212,814.59-212,814.59-2,581,811.41-7.62 |2,785,425.00-153,870.31-5.52 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8580 MISC EXPENSE 182,000.00 182,000.00 |181,181.00 .15- 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 21,500.00 1,128.04 1,128.04 20,371.96 5.25 |19,000.00 1,331.89 7.01 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 203,500.00 1,128.04 1,128.04 202,371.96 .55 |200,181.00 1,331.74 .67 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 725,714.61 725,714.61 725,714.61-|51,000.00 827,120.23 1,621.80 01000 GENERAL FUND 725,714.61 725,714.61 725,714.61-|51,000.00 827,120.23 1,621.80 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 10) Subject:January 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 3 2/23/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:17:50R5509FIN1 LOGIS001 2Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co (pb), Object 2011 20111/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 02000 PARK AND RECREATION 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 4,000,561.00-4,000,561.00-|4,014,872.00- 4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 6,600.00-55.00-55.00-6,545.00-.83 |6,275.00-55.00- .88 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 77,652.00- 59,283.84- 59,283.84- 18,368.16- 76.35 |71,219.00-1,829.15- 2.57 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 1,095,250.00- 61,944.49- 61,944.49- 1,033,305.51-5.66 |1,073,900.00-42,850.86- 3.99 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 937,400.00- 166,832.05- 166,832.05- 770,567.95- 17.80 |906,900.00-55,208.41 6.09- 4001 REVENUES 6,117,463.00-288,115.38-288,115.38-5,829,347.62-4.71 |6,073,166.00-10,473.40 .17- 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 3,524,740.00 258,065.37 258,065.37 3,266,674.63 7.32 |3,440,416.00 257,342.81 7.48 6210 SUPPLIES 854,846.00 77,325.90 77,325.90 777,520.10 9.05 |906,881.00 45,360.85 5.00 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 4,120.00 4,120.00 |4,120.00 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 1,729,657.00 113,713.85 113,713.85 1,615,943.15 6.57 |1,712,749.00 295,424.90 17.25 7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,500.00 1,500.00 |7,000.00 6001 EXPENDITURES 6,114,863.00 449,105.12 449,105.12 5,665,757.88 7.34 |6,071,166.00 598,128.56 9.85 8001 OTHER INCOME 8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 15,000.00-300.00-300.00- 14,700.00-2.00 |13,000.00-600.00- 4.62 8200 MISC RECEIPTS 2,720.00- 2,720.00-2,720.00 |2,720.00- 8001 OTHER INCOME 15,000.00-3,020.00-3,020.00-11,980.00-20.13 |13,000.00-3,320.00-25.54 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 17,600.00 828.35 828.35 16,771.65 4.71 |15,000.00 816.57 5.44 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 17,600.00 828.35 828.35 16,771.65 4.71 |15,000.00 816.57 5.44 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 158,798.09 158,798.09 158,798.09-|606,098.53 02000 PARK AND RECREATION 158,798.09 158,798.09 158,798.09-|606,098.53 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 10) Subject:January 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 4 2/23/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:20:31R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 1Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2011 20111/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 01000 GENERAL FUND 100 GENERAL 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 15,426,072.00-15,426,072.00-|14,889,605.00- 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 45,205.00-45,205.00-|45,205.00- 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 85,000.00-7,083.33- 7,083.33- 77,916.67-8.33 |85,000.00-12,010.50- 14.13 4001 REVENUES 15,556,277.00-7,083.33-7,083.33-15,549,193.67-.05 |15,019,810.00-12,010.50-.08 6001 EXPENDITURES 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES |1,800.00 6001 EXPENDITURES |1,800.00 8001 OTHER INCOME 8010 TRANSFERS IN 2,550,876.00- 212,573.00- 212,573.00- 2,338,303.00-8.33 |2,583,825.00-215,318.74- 8.33 8100 INTEREST 200,000.00-200,000.00-|200,000.00-61,747.43 30.87- 8001 OTHER INCOME 2,750,876.00-212,573.00-212,573.00-2,538,303.00-7.73 |2,783,825.00-153,571.31-5.52 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8580 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE 180,000.00 180,000.00 |180,681.00 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 180,000.00 180,000.00 |180,681.00 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 18,127,153.00-219,656.33-219,656.33-17,907,496.67-1.21 |17,622,954.00-163,781.81-.93 100 GENERAL 18,127,153.00-219,656.33-219,656.33-17,907,496.67-1.21 |17,622,954.00-163,781.81-.93 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 10) Subject:January 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 5 2/23/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:20:31R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 2Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2011 20111/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 110 ADMINISTRATION 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 221,590.00- 192,440.00- 192,440.00- 29,150.00- 86.85 |183,360.00-168,465.00- 91.88 4270 FINES & FORFEITS 8,000.00-250.00-250.00-7,750.00-3.13 |8,000.00- 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 127.14-127.14-127.14 | 4001 REVENUES 229,590.00-192,817.14-192,817.14-36,772.86-83.98 |191,360.00-168,465.00-88.04 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 469,088.00 40,218.28 40,218.28 428,869.72 8.57 |444,400.00 44,510.40 10.02 6210 SUPPLIES 2,900.00 62.94 62.94 2,837.06 2.17 |3,100.00 106.86 3.45 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 417,810.00 43,681.58 43,681.58 374,128.42 10.45 |476,972.00 20,811.28 4.36 6001 EXPENDITURES 889,798.00 83,962.80 83,962.80 805,835.20 9.44 |924,472.00 65,428.54 7.08 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 660,208.00 108,854.34-108,854.34-769,062.34 16.49-|733,112.00 103,036.46-14.05- 110 ADMINISTRATION 660,208.00 108,854.34-108,854.34-769,062.34 16.49-|733,112.00 103,036.46-14.05- Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 10) Subject:January 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 6 2/23/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:20:31R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 3Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2011 20111/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 120 FINANCE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 48,318.00-48,318.00-|48,318.00-4,026.50- 8.33 4001 REVENUES 48,318.00-48,318.00-|48,318.00-4,026.50-8.33 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 452,004.00 52,439.21 52,439.21 399,564.79 11.60 |444,200.00 44,960.93 10.12 6210 SUPPLIES 3,000.00 247.84 247.84 2,752.16 8.26 |3,000.00 345.39 11.51 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 155,710.00 9,467.12 9,467.12 146,242.88 6.08 |140,650.00 8,658.79 6.16 6001 EXPENDITURES 610,714.00 62,154.17 62,154.17 548,559.83 10.18 |587,850.00 53,965.11 9.18 8001 OTHER INCOME 8170 ADMINISTRATION FEES 750.00-175.00-175.00-575.00- 23.33 |100.00- 8001 OTHER INCOME 750.00-175.00-175.00-575.00-23.33 |100.00- 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8580 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE 2,000.00 2,000.00 |500.00 .15- .03- 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 250.00 250.00 |500.00 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 2,250.00 2,250.00 |1,000.00 .15-.02- 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 563,896.00 61,979.17 61,979.17 501,916.83 10.99 |540,532.00 49,838.46 9.22 120 FINANCE 563,896.00 61,979.17 61,979.17 501,916.83 10.99 |540,532.00 49,838.46 9.22 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 10) Subject:January 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 7 2/23/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:20:31R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 4Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2011 20111/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 121 ASSESSING 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 150.00-150.00-| 4001 REVENUES 150.00-150.00-| 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 488,690.00 38,651.30 38,651.30 450,038.70 7.91 |476,600.00 39,101.33 8.20 6210 SUPPLIES 1,200.00 261.62 261.62 938.38 21.80 |1,225.00 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 10,251.00 214.45 214.45 10,036.55 2.09 |12,255.00 1,029.70 8.40 6001 EXPENDITURES 500,141.00 39,127.37 39,127.37 461,013.63 7.82 |490,080.00 40,131.03 8.19 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 499,991.00 39,127.37 39,127.37 460,863.63 7.83 |490,080.00 40,131.03 8.19 121 ASSESSING 499,991.00 39,127.37 39,127.37 460,863.63 7.83 |490,080.00 40,131.03 8.19 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 10) Subject:January 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 8 2/23/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:20:31R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 5Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2011 20111/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 130 HUMAN RESOURCES 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 11,000.00-217.00-217.00- 10,783.00-1.97 |9,000.00-7,572.00- 84.13 4001 REVENUES 11,000.00-217.00-217.00-10,783.00-1.97 |9,000.00-7,572.00-84.13 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 497,170.00 38,511.60 38,511.60 458,658.40 7.75 |482,400.00 39,472.84 8.18 6210 SUPPLIES 2,000.00 258.21 258.21 1,741.79 12.91 |2,000.00 16.38 .82 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 153,600.00 3,479.60 3,479.60 150,120.40 2.27 |160,550.00 5,811.85 3.62 6001 EXPENDITURES 652,770.00 42,249.41 42,249.41 610,520.59 6.47 |644,950.00 45,301.07 7.02 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 641,770.00 42,032.41 42,032.41 599,737.59 6.55 |635,950.00 37,729.07 5.93 130 HUMAN RESOURCES 641,770.00 42,032.41 42,032.41 599,737.59 6.55 |635,950.00 37,729.07 5.93 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 10) Subject:January 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 9 2/23/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:20:31R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 6Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2011 20111/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 135 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 9,000.00-645.00-645.00-8,355.00-7.17 |9,000.00-300.00- 3.33 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 613,225.00-3,270.00- 3,270.00- 609,955.00-.53 |594,000.00-48,467.36- 8.16 4001 REVENUES 622,225.00-3,915.00-3,915.00-618,310.00-.63 |603,000.00-48,767.36-8.09 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,036,336.00 108,466.22 108,466.22 927,869.78 10.47 |1,001,700.00 112,807.52 11.26 6210 SUPPLIES 1,700.00 26.01 26.01 1,673.99 1.53 |1,700.00 15.32 .90 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 56,150.00 26.61 26.61 56,123.39 .05 |47,750.00 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,094,186.00 108,518.84 108,518.84 985,667.16 9.92 |1,051,150.00 112,822.84 10.73 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 471,961.00 104,603.84 104,603.84 367,357.16 22.16 |448,150.00 64,055.48 14.29 135 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 471,961.00 104,603.84 104,603.84 367,357.16 22.16 |448,150.00 64,055.48 14.29 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 10) Subject:January 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 10 2/23/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:20:31R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 7Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2011 20111/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 140 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 43,000.00-43,000.00-|43,000.00- 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 15,000.00-2,500.00- 2,500.00- 12,500.00- 16.67 |15,000.00-2,500.00- 16.67 4001 REVENUES 58,000.00-2,500.00-2,500.00-55,500.00-4.31 |58,000.00-2,500.00-4.31 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 543,009.00 32,889.72 32,889.72 510,119.28 6.06 |546,200.00 44,002.44 8.06 6210 SUPPLIES 79,650.00 2,559.76 2,559.76 77,090.24 3.21 |86,150.00 4,439.37 5.15 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 20,000.00 423.21 423.21 19,576.79 2.12 |26,000.00 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 471,892.00 32,845.88 32,845.88 439,046.12 6.96 |423,392.00 21,676.82 5.12 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,114,551.00 68,718.57 68,718.57 1,045,832.43 6.17 |1,081,742.00 70,118.63 6.48 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,056,551.00 66,218.57 66,218.57 990,332.43 6.27 |1,023,742.00 67,618.63 6.61 140 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,056,551.00 66,218.57 66,218.57 990,332.43 6.27 |1,023,742.00 67,618.63 6.61 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 10) Subject:January 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 11 2/23/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:20:31R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 8Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2011 20111/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 145 INFORMATION RESOURCES 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 117.29-117.29-117.29 | 4001 REVENUES 117.29-117.29-117.29 | 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 529,075.00 42,929.85 42,929.85 486,145.15 8.11 |516,850.00 48,321.08 9.35 6210 SUPPLIES 29,000.00 1,237.40- 1,237.40- 30,237.40 4.27- |23,500.00 4,496.09 19.13 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 2,400.00 2,400.00 | 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 833,751.00 16,152.26 16,152.26 817,598.74 1.94 |860,316.00 17,336.01 2.02 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,394,226.00 57,844.71 57,844.71 1,336,381.29 4.15 |1,400,666.00 70,153.18 5.01 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES |12.39- 8501 OTHER EXPENSE |12.39- 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,394,226.00 57,727.42 57,727.42 1,336,498.58 4.14 |1,400,666.00 70,140.79 5.01 145 INFORMATION RESOURCES 1,394,226.00 57,727.42 57,727.42 1,336,498.58 4.14 |1,400,666.00 70,140.79 5.01 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 10) Subject:January 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 12 2/23/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:20:31R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 9Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2011 20111/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 150 COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL |3,000.00- 4001 REVENUES |3,000.00- 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 196,370.00 14,789.53 14,789.53 181,580.47 7.53 |188,280.00 10,331.14 5.49 6210 SUPPLIES 100.00 100.00 |100.00 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 98,000.00 98,000.00 |93,525.00 6001 EXPENDITURES 294,470.00 14,789.53 14,789.53 279,680.47 5.02 |281,905.00 10,331.14 3.66 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 294,470.00 14,789.53 14,789.53 279,680.47 5.02 |278,905.00 10,331.14 3.70 150 COMMUNICATIONS & MARKETING 294,470.00 14,789.53 14,789.53 279,680.47 5.02 |278,905.00 10,331.14 3.70 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 10) Subject:January 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 13 2/23/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:20:31R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 10Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2011 20111/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 160 POLICE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 4,500.00-4,500.00-| 4270 FINES & FORFEITS 320,000.00- 24,174.05- 24,174.05- 295,825.95-7.55 |303,500.00- 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 446,982.00-446,982.00-|800,582.00-39,426.11- 4.92 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 100,700.00-4,094.75- 4,094.75- 96,605.25-4.07 |109,700.00-3,887.00- 3.54 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 8,323.08- 8,323.08-8,323.08 |4,869.11- 4001 REVENUES 872,182.00-36,591.88-36,591.88-835,590.12-4.20 |1,213,782.00-48,182.22-3.97 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 6,599,679.00 510,927.00 510,927.00 6,088,752.00 7.74 |6,609,294.00 529,281.99 8.01 6210 SUPPLIES 96,600.00 10,243.97 10,243.97 86,356.03 10.60 |141,050.00 4,586.52 3.25 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 33,025.00 4,608.82 4,608.82 28,416.18 13.96 |33,775.00 5,583.44 16.53 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 478,958.00 18,599.11 18,599.11 460,358.89 3.88 |521,783.00 22,281.28 4.27 6001 EXPENDITURES 7,208,262.00 544,378.90 544,378.90 6,663,883.10 7.55 |7,305,902.00 561,733.23 7.69 8001 OTHER INCOME 8010 TRANSFERS IN 39,000.00-39,000.00-| 8070 OTHER RECOVERIES 4,000.00-66.59-66.59-3,933.41-1.66 |1,500.00-199.00- 13.27 8001 OTHER INCOME 43,000.00-66.59-66.59-42,933.41-.15 |1,500.00-199.00-13.27 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 250.00 28.80 28.80 221.20 11.52 |500.00 22.00 4.40 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 250.00 28.80 28.80 221.20 11.52 |500.00 22.00 4.40 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 6,293,330.00 507,749.23 507,749.23 5,785,580.77 8.07 |6,091,120.00 513,374.01 8.43 160 POLICE 6,293,330.00 507,749.23 507,749.23 5,785,580.77 8.07 |6,091,120.00 513,374.01 8.43 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 10) Subject:January 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 14 2/23/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:20:31R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 11Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2011 20111/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 161 COMMUNITY OUTREACH - POLICE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 78,960.00 6,146.08 6,146.08 72,813.92 7.78 |76,700.00 6,247.78 8.15 6210 SUPPLIES 850.00 850.00 |850.00 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 8,705.00 273.16 273.16 8,431.84 3.14 |8,705.00 231.00 2.65 6001 EXPENDITURES 88,515.00 6,419.24 6,419.24 82,095.76 7.25 |86,255.00 6,478.78 7.51 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 88,515.00 6,419.24 6,419.24 82,095.76 7.25 |86,255.00 6,478.78 7.51 161 COMMUNITY OUTREACH - POLICE 88,515.00 6,419.24 6,419.24 82,095.76 7.25 |86,255.00 6,478.78 7.51 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 10) Subject:January 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 15 2/23/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:20:31R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 12Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2011 20111/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 165 FIRE PROTECTION 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 40,000.00-4,307.79- 4,307.79- 35,692.21- 10.77 |40,000.00-1,924.88- 4.81 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 194,000.00-194,000.00-|300,000.00- 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 4,000.00-360.00-360.00-3,640.00-9.00 |4,000.00-250.00- 6.25 4001 REVENUES 238,000.00-4,667.79-4,667.79-233,332.21-1.96 |344,000.00-2,174.88-.63 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 2,877,201.00 219,487.10 219,487.10 2,657,713.90 7.63 |2,826,180.00 228,014.76 8.07 6210 SUPPLIES 69,560.00 1,015.26 1,015.26 68,544.74 1.46 |71,810.00 975.66 1.36 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 5,000.00 5,000.00 |5,000.00 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 212,583.00 9,528.04 9,528.04 203,054.96 4.48 |219,183.00 8,700.67 3.97 6001 EXPENDITURES 3,164,344.00 230,030.40 230,030.40 2,934,313.60 7.27 |3,122,173.00 237,691.09 7.61 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 2,926,344.00 225,362.61 225,362.61 2,700,981.39 7.70 |2,778,173.00 235,516.21 8.48 165 FIRE PROTECTION 2,926,344.00 225,362.61 225,362.61 2,700,981.39 7.70 |2,778,173.00 235,516.21 8.48 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 10) Subject:January 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 16 2/23/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:20:31R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 13Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2011 20111/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 170 INSPECTIONAL SERVICES 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 1,995,700.00- 549,932.54- 549,932.54- 1,445,767.46- 27.56 |1,987,288.00-500,327.40- 25.18 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 2,400.00-37.31-37.31-2,362.69-1.55 |35.00- 4001 REVENUES 1,998,100.00-549,969.85-549,969.85-1,448,130.15-27.52 |1,987,288.00-500,362.40-25.18 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,763,169.00 132,358.71 132,358.71 1,630,810.29 7.51 |1,713,100.00 131,523.95 7.68 6210 SUPPLIES 17,000.00 860.15 860.15 16,139.85 5.06 |21,500.00 172.89 .80 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 62,127.00 3,210.33 3,210.33 58,916.67 5.17 |63,627.00 4,568.23 7.18 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,842,296.00 136,429.19 136,429.19 1,705,866.81 7.41 |1,798,227.00 136,265.07 7.58 8001 OTHER INCOME 8200 MISC RECEIPTS |100.00- 8001 OTHER INCOME |100.00- 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 21,000.00 1,099.24 1,099.24 19,900.76 5.23 |18,000.00 1,322.28 7.35 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 21,000.00 1,099.24 1,099.24 19,900.76 5.23 |18,000.00 1,322.28 7.35 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 134,804.00-412,441.42-412,441.42-277,637.42 305.96 |171,161.00-362,775.05-211.95 170 INSPECTIONAL SERVICES 134,804.00-412,441.42-412,441.42-277,637.42 305.96 |171,161.00-362,775.05-211.95 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 10) Subject:January 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 17 2/23/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:20:31R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 14Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2011 20111/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 175 PUBLIC WORKS - ADMINISTRATION 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 795,548.00 66,913.89 66,913.89 728,634.11 8.41 |825,800.00 72,200.58 8.74 6210 SUPPLIES 4,000.00 83.87 83.87 3,916.13 2.10 |4,000.00 65.56 1.64 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,000.00 1,000.00 |1,000.00 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 29,150.00 738.75 738.75 28,411.25 2.53 |24,100.00 475.00 1.97 6001 EXPENDITURES 829,698.00 67,736.51 67,736.51 761,961.49 8.16 |854,900.00 72,741.14 8.51 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 829,698.00 67,736.51 67,736.51 761,961.49 8.16 |854,900.00 72,741.14 8.51 175 PUBLIC WORKS - ADMINISTRATION 829,698.00 67,736.51 67,736.51 761,961.49 8.16 |854,900.00 72,741.14 8.51 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 10) Subject:January 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 18 2/23/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:20:31R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 15Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2011 20111/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 176 PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 75,000.00-3,150.00- 3,150.00- 71,850.00-4.20 |75,000.00-9,700.00- 12.93 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 330,000.00-330,000.00-|330,000.00- 4001 REVENUES 405,000.00-3,150.00-3,150.00-401,850.00-.78 |405,000.00-9,700.00-2.40 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 772,432.00 55,592.07 55,592.07 716,839.93 7.20 |750,000.00 56,382.20 7.52 6210 SUPPLIES 6,850.00 385.89 385.89 6,464.11 5.63 |7,050.00 92.34 1.31 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 2,000.00 2,000.00 |2,000.00 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 64,750.00 2,656.13 2,656.13 62,093.87 4.10 |70,750.00 1,705.00 2.41 6001 EXPENDITURES 846,032.00 58,634.09 58,634.09 787,397.91 6.93 |829,800.00 58,179.54 7.01 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 441,032.00 55,484.09 55,484.09 385,547.91 12.58 |424,800.00 48,479.54 11.41 176 PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING 441,032.00 55,484.09 55,484.09 385,547.91 12.58 |424,800.00 48,479.54 11.41 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 10) Subject:January 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 19 2/23/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:20:31R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 16Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2011 20111/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 177 PUBLIC WORKS - OPERATIONS 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 120.00-120.00-|120.00- 4270 FINES & FORFEITS 200.00-80.00-80.00-120.00- 40.00 |250.00-114.43- 45.77 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 450,000.00-450,000.00-|450,000.00- 4001 REVENUES 450,320.00-80.00-80.00-450,240.00-.02 |450,370.00-114.43-.03 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 1,298,285.00 102,968.74 102,968.74 1,195,316.26 7.93 |1,230,300.00 108,430.14 8.81 6210 SUPPLIES 454,000.00 68,309.63 68,309.63 385,690.37 15.05 |479,500.00 86,834.93 18.11 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 798,000.00 46,238.34 46,238.34 751,761.66 5.79 |799,300.00 45,128.63 5.65 6001 EXPENDITURES 2,550,285.00 217,516.71 217,516.71 2,332,768.29 8.53 |2,509,100.00 240,393.70 9.58 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 2,099,965.00 217,436.71 217,436.71 1,882,528.29 10.35 |2,058,730.00 240,279.27 11.67 177 PUBLIC WORKS - OPERATIONS 2,099,965.00 217,436.71 217,436.71 1,882,528.29 10.35 |2,058,730.00 240,279.27 11.67 01000 GENERAL FUND 725,714.61 725,714.61 725,714.61-|51,000.00 827,120.23 1,621.80 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 10) Subject:January 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 20 2/23/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:20:31R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 17Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2011 20111/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 02000 PARK AND RECREATION 200 ORGANIZED RECREATION 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4010 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 4,000,561.00-4,000,561.00-|4,014,872.00- 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 44,702.00-44,702.00-|44,702.00- 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 263,000.00- 36,092.80- 36,092.80- 226,907.20- 13.72 |261,000.00-27,803.69- 10.65 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 31,400.00-480.00-480.00- 30,920.00-1.53 |31,400.00-812.50- 2.59 4001 REVENUES 4,339,663.00-36,572.80-36,572.80-4,303,090.20-.84 |4,351,974.00-28,616.19-.66 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 724,457.00 57,705.51 57,705.51 666,751.49 7.97 |715,280.00 55,316.82 7.73 6210 SUPPLIES 51,541.00 13,941.46 13,941.46 37,599.54 27.05 |59,451.00 1,015.83 1.71 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 446,232.00 15,998.47 15,998.47 430,233.53 3.59 |455,677.00 200,283.61 43.95 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,222,230.00 87,645.44 87,645.44 1,134,584.56 7.17 |1,230,408.00 256,616.26 20.86 8001 OTHER INCOME 8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 15,000.00-15,000.00-|15,000.00-350.00- 2.33 8200 MISC REVENUE 2,720.00- 2,720.00-2,720.00 |2,720.00- 8001 OTHER INCOME 15,000.00-2,720.00-2,720.00-12,280.00-18.13 |15,000.00-3,070.00-20.47 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 17,000.00 803.50 803.50 16,196.50 4.73 |15,000.00 783.91 5.23 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 17,000.00 803.50 803.50 16,196.50 4.73 |15,000.00 783.91 5.23 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 3,115,433.00-49,156.14 49,156.14 3,164,589.14-1.58-|3,121,566.00-225,713.98 7.23- 200 ORGANIZED RECREATION 3,115,433.00-49,156.14 49,156.14 3,164,589.14-1.58-|3,121,566.00-225,713.98 7.23- Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 10) Subject:January 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 21 2/23/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:20:31R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 18Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2011 20111/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 201 RECREATION CENTER 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 638,000.00- 13,434.93- 13,434.93- 624,565.07-2.11 |630,000.00-10,567.09- 1.68 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 771,000.00- 155,262.03- 155,262.03- 615,737.97- 20.14 |744,500.00-62,197.33 8.35- 4001 REVENUES 1,409,000.00-168,696.96-168,696.96-1,240,303.04-11.97 |1,374,500.00-51,630.24 3.76- 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 786,207.00 47,274.66 47,274.66 738,932.34 6.01 |785,638.00 47,458.31 6.04 6210 SUPPLIES 170,750.00 10,069.22 10,069.22 160,680.78 5.90 |170,350.00 13,374.42 7.85 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 485,490.00 25,793.35 25,793.35 459,696.65 5.31 |480,870.00 23,946.58 4.98 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,442,447.00 83,137.23 83,137.23 1,359,309.77 5.76 |1,436,858.00 84,779.31 5.90 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 33,447.00 85,559.73-85,559.73-119,006.73 255.81-|62,358.00 136,409.55 218.75 201 RECREATION CENTER 33,447.00 85,559.73-85,559.73-119,006.73 255.81-|62,358.00 136,409.55 218.75 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 10) Subject:January 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 22 2/23/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:20:31R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 19Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2011 20111/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 202 PARK MAINTENANCE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4100 LICENSES & PERMITS 6,600.00-55.00-55.00-6,545.00-.83 |6,275.00-55.00- .88 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 10,500.00-344.90-344.90- 10,155.10-3.28 |10,500.00- 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 34,000.00-2,117.50- 2,117.50- 31,882.50-6.23 |30,000.00-2,500.00 8.33- 4001 REVENUES 51,100.00-2,517.40-2,517.40-48,582.60-4.93 |46,775.00-2,445.00 5.23- 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 970,504.00 72,427.10 72,427.10 898,076.90 7.46 |926,500.00 74,035.51 7.99 6210 SUPPLIES 102,555.00 2,393.50 2,393.50 100,161.50 2.33 |97,755.00 958.91 .98 6300 NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 4,120.00 4,120.00 |4,120.00 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 358,195.00 23,992.33 23,992.33 334,202.67 6.70 |361,340.00 24,842.05 6.87 7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY |7,000.00 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,435,374.00 98,812.93 98,812.93 1,336,561.07 6.88 |1,396,715.00 99,836.47 7.15 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,384,274.00 96,295.53 96,295.53 1,287,978.47 6.96 |1,349,940.00 102,281.47 7.58 202 PARK MAINTENANCE 1,384,274.00 96,295.53 96,295.53 1,287,978.47 6.96 |1,349,940.00 102,281.47 7.58 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 10) Subject:January 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 23 2/23/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:20:31R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 20Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2011 20111/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 203 WESTWOOD HILLS 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 95,000.00-5,628.55- 5,628.55- 89,371.45-5.92 |86,400.00-3,788.00- 4.38 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 208.00-208.00-208.00 |288.00- 4001 REVENUES 95,000.00-5,836.55-5,836.55-89,163.45-6.14 |86,400.00-4,076.00-4.72 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 431,151.00 28,584.27 28,584.27 402,566.73 6.63 |421,200.00 28,983.04 6.88 6210 SUPPLIES 27,000.00 138.95 138.95 26,861.05 .51 |27,000.00 627.48 2.32 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 43,615.00 2,281.57 2,281.57 41,333.43 5.23 |45,250.00 2,430.47 5.37 6001 EXPENDITURES 501,766.00 31,004.79 31,004.79 470,761.21 6.18 |493,450.00 32,040.99 6.49 8001 OTHER INCOME 8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS 300.00-300.00-300.00 |250.00- 8001 OTHER INCOME 300.00-300.00-300.00 |250.00- 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 8590 BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 600.00 24.85 24.85 575.15 4.14 |32.66 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 600.00 24.85 24.85 575.15 4.14 |32.66 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 407,366.00 24,893.09 24,893.09 382,472.91 6.11 |407,050.00 27,747.65 6.82 203 WESTWOOD HILLS 407,366.00 24,893.09 24,893.09 382,472.91 6.11 |407,050.00 27,747.65 6.82 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 10) Subject:January 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 24 2/23/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:20:31R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 21Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2011 20111/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 204 ENVIRONMENT 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 7,500.00- 57,969.16- 57,969.16- 50,469.16 772.92 | 4600 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 88,750.00-6,443.31- 6,443.31- 82,306.69-7.26 |86,000.00-692.08- .80 4001 REVENUES 96,250.00-64,412.47-64,412.47-31,837.53-66.92 |86,000.00-692.08-.80 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 112,204.00 8,614.93 8,614.93 103,589.07 7.68 |108,648.00 8,800.19 8.10 6210 SUPPLIES 17,100.00 674.69 674.69 16,425.31 3.95 |19,425.00 619.12 3.19 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 240,520.00 27,836.54 27,836.54 212,683.46 11.57 |223,470.00 34,718.74 15.54 7800 CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,500.00 1,500.00 | 6001 EXPENDITURES 371,324.00 37,126.16 37,126.16 334,197.84 10.00 |351,543.00 44,138.05 12.56 8001 OTHER INCOME 8130 CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS |2,000.00 8001 OTHER INCOME |2,000.00 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 275,074.00 27,286.31-27,286.31-302,360.31 9.92-|267,543.00 43,445.97 16.24 204 ENVIRONMENT 275,074.00 27,286.31-27,286.31-302,360.31 9.92-|267,543.00 43,445.97 16.24 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 10) Subject:January 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 25 2/23/2011CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:20:31R5509FIN1 LOGIS005 22Monthly Financial Report Page -By Co, Dept (pb), Object 2011 20111/31/2011 <==========================================>20102011 Description Annual Budget Current Period YTD Actual Budget Balance Per Cent Used | | Prior Year Budget Same Period Prior Year YTD Actual Per Cent Used 205 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 4001 REVENUES 4300 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 25,450.00-1,314.68- 1,314.68- 24,135.32-5.17 |26,517.00-1,829.15- 6.90 5200 MISCELLANEOUS 101,000.00-8,764.52- 8,764.52- 92,235.48-8.68 |101,000.00-8,388.42- 8.31 4001 REVENUES 126,450.00-10,079.20-10,079.20-116,370.80-7.97 |127,517.00-10,217.57-8.01 6001 EXPENDITURES 6002 PERSONAL SERVICES 500,217.00 43,458.90 43,458.90 456,758.10 8.69 |483,150.00 42,748.94 8.85 6210 SUPPLIES 485,900.00 50,108.08 50,108.08 435,791.92 10.31 |532,900.00 28,765.09 5.40 6350 SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES 155,605.00 17,811.59 17,811.59 137,793.41 11.45 |146,142.00 9,203.45 6.30 6001 EXPENDITURES 1,141,722.00 111,378.57 111,378.57 1,030,343.43 9.76 |1,162,192.00 80,717.48 6.95 8001 OTHER INCOME 8501 OTHER EXPENSE 4000 REVENUES & EXPENSES 1,015,272.00 101,299.37 101,299.37 913,972.63 9.98 |1,034,675.00 70,499.91 6.81 205 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 1,015,272.00 101,299.37 101,299.37 913,972.63 9.98 |1,034,675.00 70,499.91 6.81 02000 PARK AND RECREATION 158,798.09 158,798.09 158,798.09-|606,098.53 Study Session Meeting of February 28, 2011 (Item No. 10) Subject:January 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 26